PRIVATE BUSINESS

HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill

Order for Third Reading read. To be read the Third time on Wednesday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Mail/Post Office

Alan Reid: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of the Royal Mail and Post Office in Scotland.

Michael Weir: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of the post office network in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues and we discuss a range of issues.

Alan Reid: The Government's plan to abolish the Post Office card account in four years time will, according to Post Office management, lead to the closure of 10,000 of the country's 14,000 post offices, which will mean that hardly a rural post office will be left in Scotland. Surely that cannot be allowed to happen. Will the Minister back those Scottish pensioners who have chosen to collect their pension at a post office, and will he urge the Department for Work and Pensions to retain the post office option for pensioners after 2010?

David Cairns: I have completely given up hope that when the Liberal Democrats raise the issue of post offices, they might pause for a moment to reflect on the £2 billion of investment that this Government have put in to help sustain the post office network. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment will enable people to access universal banking. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the commitment on the Post Office card account runs out in 2010; moreover, more than 70 per cent. of people who have such accounts also have bank accounts. It is this Government's investment in the Post Office that is giving it a fighting chance, and I fail to see how the hon. Gentleman's party's policy of privatising it would help.

Michael Weir: Is the Minister not being a little complacent about the future of the Post Office? Does he not know, for example, that Citibank, which runs the Post Office card account, has transferred such accounts to another provider without even telling those who have them? Does he not feel that the Government's card account policy, which is undermining the situation prior to 2010 and also the future of post offices, is in utter confusion? Will he get the Department for Work and Pensions to look again at this ridiculous decision?

David Cairns: As I just said, no decision has been taken on how the situation will work out after 2010. I point out again that it is thanks to this Government putting thousands of millions of pounds into the Post Office—including an additional £300 million into sustaining the rural network—that it has any kind of future at all. The hon. Gentleman's policies would allow the post office network to wither on the vine, but we are not prepared to do that.

Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Post Office decides to sell premises—it decided, for example, to sell the post office in Coatbridge town centre to Spar—it would be appropriate for consultations to take place, but not during the Christmas and new year period? Moreover, when applications for drink licences are part of the project, it might be courteous to inform the Member of Parliament concerned and, indeed, the Member of the Scottish Parliament.

David Cairns: Obviously, the Post Office's commercial arrangements for disposing of its assets are primarily a matter for it, but I would of course hope that it could extend to my right hon. Friend—who is well known in this House as a diligent and hard-working MP who represents his constituents' best interests—the courtesy of informing him of such decisions. Of course, he is talking primarily about the Crown post office network, which represents less than 4 per cent. of the total network and loses more than £70 million a year. The Post Office has some tough commercial decisions to take, but that should not short-circuit the normal planning application process, or the courtesies to which my right hon. Friend refers.

David Mundell: Last week, the Department for Work and Pensions said that the new products and services available from the Post Office from 2010 wouldbe based on customers actual behaviour and requirements. How will the requirements of customers in Scotland, particularly those in rural areas, be factored into those products and services?

David Cairns: This is precisely the point: it is because people's shopping habits are changing that we have to take these difficult decisions. More and more people are choosing to have their benefits paid directly into bank and building society accounts, which is why we invested money to make sure that the Post Office is part of the universal banking network. Had we not done so, it would have had absolutely no chance whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman mentions rural post offices, but he would do well to remember that when his party was in power, 3,500 rural post offices closed, so he is in no position to lecture anyone on this issue.

Employment Statistics

Ann McKechin: What recent assessment he has made of trends in unemployment in Scotland.

Jim Devine: If he will make a statement on the latest rate of employment in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: The Scottish labour market is in its strongest position in decades, with more people in work and fewer unemployed than ever before.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the article in Monday's edition of The Herald, showing that Glasgow's and Edinburgh's economic performance outstripped that of every other city in the United Kingdom, with the exception of London. Does he agree that that represents a success for the employment policies of this Government, who are spending much more time and money on ensuring that more people in Scotland enter the employment market?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good that both Edinburgh and Glasgow are doing extremely well in terms of economic performance. It is good to see so many people in work today, whereas a decade ago many were out of work. There is still more to do, particularly in Glasgow, where there are still many people who could, with appropriate help, get back to work. What has happened shows that those who opposed the new deal almost 10 years ago were wrong to do so.

Jim Devine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that when the Conservative party was in power, unemployment in my constituency was in excess of 20 per cent. When I was working in a health centre, I saw doctors prescribe anti-depressants, but if they could have prescribed a job people would not have needed to come to the health centre. Today's figures are only a tenth of what they were. Does my right hon. Friend agree that "caring, compassionate conservatism" is a contradiction in terms?

Alistair Darling: Anyone who visited West Lothian during the Tory years will have seen exactly what happened to thousands of people who were out of work and left with no prospects whatever. Livingston now has one of the highest employment rates in the country. The constituency is doing well precisely because we have built a strong and stable economy with good job prospects. Scotland is now a place where people want to come and do business.

Jo Swinson: I am sure that we all welcome the employment figures overall, but there are still 285,000 people in Scotland on incapacity benefit, many of whom would like to find work. Will the Secretary of State explain how the loss of 1,500 staff from the Department for Work and Pensions in Scotland over the next two years—on top of the 1,500 jobs already axed—will help claimants with the support that they need to find work?

Alistair Darling: First, let me welcome the hon. Lady to her new position as the Liberal Democrat shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. The fact that she welcomes the low levels of unemployment is good, but it is a pity that when we introduced the new deal the Liberals opposed it—[Interruption.] They were in favour of the concept, but against providing the money to pay for it.
	As for the hon. Lady's question about the DWP and Jobcentre Plus, at one point the DWP employed more than 100,000 people. However, unlike many banks and insurance companies, which have automated their payment procedures and changed the way they work, the DWP has not done so. What is happening in the DWP and Jobcentre Plus now is the result of having to take account of new IT systems and different ways of working, which will help to provide a better service. If the hon. Lady has visited one of the new Jobcentre Plus offices, she would know that they are a world apart from what they used to be 10 or 15 years ago. They provide effective help, so that people who lose their jobs can have the support that they need to get them back into work as quickly as possible. I suspect that none of the difficult decisions would have been taken by the Liberal Democrats.

Sandra Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Coal, which operates surface mines in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland, is currently consulting on making up to 150 redundancies, largely as a result of consecutive rises in gasoil duty? The straw that broke the camel's back was last week's Budget announcement. Will my right hon. Friend meet me urgently to discuss the problem and will he ask the Chancellor to examine the practical implications of his policy in that regard?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the Scottish Coal announcement that was made last week. I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

Alex Salmond: What does it tell us about employment prospects in the fishing industry when Banff and Buchan colleges have been forced through financial pressure to discontinue all training courses relating to that industry? Does the Secretary of State realise that this is the only such training provision on the mainland of Scotland, which educates through mates and skippers tickets the vast majority of people across the UK? How does that square with what the Chancellor said last Wednesday about a rosy future for further education colleges? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those courses represent training in a strategic industry and should be protected for the future of employment in that industry?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the funding of further education colleges in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. Because we are increasing the amount of money spent on education more generally, Scotland has benefited, but what courses are appropriate is a matter for the Scottish Executive and further education colleges.

John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that one of the longest periods of stability in the economy in our history has resulted in the remarkable reduction of unemployment that we have seen since 1997?

Alistair Darling: That is right. One of the main reasons for such high unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s was the fact that, under the previous Conservative Government, we saw two of the deepest recessions of the last century. Many individuals and their families suffered in consequence. Now that we have a strong economy, we have had growth in each consecutive quarter since we came to power—and we have had very low levels of unemployment, with record numbers of people going into work. We have also been able, crucially, to increase the amount of money given to families, particularly those with children, in order to   help them do well for themselves and to adapt to changing labour market conditions.

David Mundell: Is it not complacent of the Secretary of State to base his view of Scotland's economy on only one set of employment figures? Is he not aware of the growing concern among the business community and economists in Scotland that recent growth was due to expansion of the public not the private sector—an unsustainable trend in the long run?

Alistair Darling: No, I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, I did not base what I said on one recent set of employment statistics. If he looks at the employment statistics issued over the past few months and the past few years, he will see that unemployment is at an historically low level and that employment is at an historically high level.
	The size of the public sector in Scotland has not changed much over the past few years but, yes, there are more doctors, more nurses, more teachers and more police. We are in favour of that, but the Conservatives are pledged to reduce public expenditure, which inevitably would result in less resources being available for it.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to surveys. The last few business surveys have actually been extremely optimistic about Scotland's prospects. Indeed, Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, continues to be a very good place to do business, which is why so many people are in work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make comparisons, why does not he cast his mind back to 10 or 20 years ago when the position was completely different?

David Mundell: I know that the right hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, prefers to talk about the past rather than the present and the future, but he cannot dispute the fact that 51 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product is in the public sector, compared with 40 per cent. in the UK as a whole. Does he think that the proportion in Scotland is too high, too low or just about right?

Alistair Darling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said a few moments ago. The size of the public sector has not changed that much, but I make no apology for the fact that we are employing more teachers, more doctors and more nurses. I would have thought that most people in Scotland would think that that is a good thing. At the same time, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, employment prospects in Scotland are good—as is the number of people in work—but we are not complacent, as there will be changes and constant challenges from different parts of the world.
	I am happy to talk not just about the present but the future too, because as long as we maintain our present policies and maintain stability—taking the right decisions about public expenditure, instead of being locked into a wholly dogmatic rule that there must be public expenditure cuts regardless of what is required—and stick to the course we have set, the prospects for Scotland and the United Kingdom are good. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were to get into power, many of the things to which people are becoming accustomed would be lost.

Katy Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest figures are far from a one-off? In my constituency, there has been an increase of more than 25 per cent. in employment since 1997, although the constituency has still not fully recovered from 18 years of Tory rule, when industry after industry was closed. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent initiative to create an Irvine bay regeneration company to bring investment to my area and create jobs, because our goal of full employment is vital in ensuring that we spread prosperity throughout the whole community?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. She is right, too, to stress the importance of regeneration, not just in her constituency but in certain other parts of Scotland. Most of us can remember what Ayrshire was like 10 or 15 years ago, when thousands of people were not only out of work, but had no prospect of ever getting any work. A second generation of people was growing up with no prospect of getting work. The position is different now, but we cannot be complacent—we must constantly be aware of the fact that there are still people we need to help to get into work, but the strong economy and background created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has benefited my hon. Friend's constituency as well as every other constituency in Scotland.

Sub-post Offices (Closures)

Malcolm Bruce: Whether he has made an assessment of how many sub-post offices in Scotland may close when (a) the rural subsidy ends and (b) the Post Office card account is phased out.

David Cairns: The Government have committed £300 million to rural post offices over the next two years. No decision on the future funding or size of the network beyond that time has yet been made.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is not it the case that phasing out the rural subsidy and ending the Post Office card account—a betrayal if ever there was one—will leave pretty well every post office in rural Scotland non-viable? What will he do to ensure that those post offices have a viable future? Will he co-ordinate with other Government agencies to ensure that they do not face oblivion? Earlier, the Minister criticised the Liberal Democrats, but at least we have a plan for investment in the Post Office. What is his?

David Cairns: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman used one "p" word, plan, but did not use another, privatisation. Privatisation is the Liberal Democrat solution, coupled with their plan to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, which is where the subsidy comes from, and spend its budget elsewhere. The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves said that if the plan to privatise the Post Office goes through,
	"it moves us to the right of David Cameron."
	That is hardly a healthy position for the Liberal Democrats to be in.

Child Poverty

Mohammad Sarwar: What assessment he has made of progress in Scotland towards the Government's target of reducing the proportion of children living in low-income families by a quarter by 2004–05.

David Cairns: In 1998–99, there were an estimated 290,000 Scottish children in relative low-income families. By 2005, that number fell to 190,000, a reduction of 34 per cent., which exceeds the Government's child poverty target for the period.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that reply and I hope that Members from both side of the House welcome that progress. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still low-income families in the east end and south side of Glasgow? Does he further agree that the increased minimum wage and better jobs are the best ways to help disadvantaged children?

David Cairns: Absolutely; I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a moment ago, there are more people in work in Scotland today than at any time in the nation's history. With measures such as the minimum wage, the working tax credit and the child tax credit, we are making work pay for those families. Spending per head in Glasgow is higher than in any other part of Scotland, which is quite right because of the deprivation and poverty that still exist there. An enormous amount of progress has been made. We are making tremendous inroads into reducing poverty, with a view to eradicating it altogether, but all of that would be put at risk if we stopped the funding going into areas such as Glasgow, which would be the inevitable consequence of the election of the Conservatives.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues the Advocate-General has considered since 28 February.

Alistair Darling: I should declare an interest: I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
	As the House will know, Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of Neil Davidson, QC, as Advocate-General from 21 March. I am told that since 1 March, 59 devolution issues have been intimated to the Advocate-General.

Anne McIntosh: May I declare a similar interest? I am also a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar. I think that it is rather longer since I ceased to practise.
	I add my congratulations, as I have already done in writing, to the new Advocate-General and welcome him to his position. I regret that this is the first time ever that we have had a Law Officer who is not a Member of either House and so cannot be exposed to the full scrutiny of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to ask the new Advocate-General his views on why, increasingly, the public are being excluded from criminal trials before the High Court in Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at that and will he look closely at the reasons for it?

Alistair Darling: I can correct the hon. Lady on one point: Neil Davidson is a Member of the House of Lords. Unless I am very much mistaken, he was introduced about 20 minutes ago. If I am wrong and a message comes from the other place, I will happily stand corrected—and I will want to know why, as well. In relation to her other point, I am not aware of people being excluded. Clearly, the conduct of affairs in the Scottish courts is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Lord Advocate. If there is a problem, I will certainly look into it, but I am not aware of one.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, add my words of congratulation to Neil Davidson, QC, who was a very good Solicitor-General in his day. One of the functions of the Advocate-General is to ensure that legislation coming before the House is Human Rights Act compliant. How on earth did the previous Advocate-General manage to make that judgment in relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and will that now be considered again?

Alistair Darling: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's good wishes. I think that I am right in saying that the new Advocate-General specialised in human rights legislation when he was in private practice, so I am sure that he will be only too happy to consider the issue from the other side of the fence.
	In relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, I am aware of the general concern in the House and outside it. The objective was to try to introduce legislation that would make it easier to get rid of what might loosely be called red tape. It is also important, though, to make sure that we have a correct balance between doing that and having proper safeguards. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office is reflecting on that at the moment.

Labour Market Statistics

John McFall: What assessment he has made of the most recent labour market statistics for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to Questions 3 and 7.

John McFall: Has the Secretary of State seen the recent Royal Bank of Scotland report that indicates that private sector employment in Scotland has risen in each of the past 12 months? Given that situation, will he take up the challenge that the Chancellor set out in his Budget last week so that we plan for long-term challenges, ensure that the globalisation agenda, with the increasing drive from China and India, is taken on in Scotland, and ensure that Scotland's private sector is indeed the engine of growth for the country?

Alistair Darling: I did see that recent report. It was encouraging that the bank said that Scottish manufacturing appeared to be in better shape than that in many other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend is also right that at a time when there is huge expansion of the Chinese and Indian economies, as well as in other parts of the world, we must ensure that we can adapt and capitalise on our strengths, such as education, so that we can continue to generate jobs and see our economy grow.

Charles Walker: What specific measures are the Government taking to make Scotland an even more attractive place for doing business to the private sector and, especially, to encourage high-skill industry in Europe to locate to Scotland?

Alistair Darling: The single most important thing is to ensure that we have a stable economy with low interest rates so that firms coming into Scotland can plan ahead for the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the help that the Scottish Executive give on training and supporting companies, when that is necessary. They generally help firms and encourage them to come and invest, and that policy has been hugely successful. As I said a moment ago, we must be mindful of the fact that there are challenges from all over the world, but I am confident that Scotland will continue to do well, and many recent surveys recognise that.

Child Poverty

Anne Begg: What assessment he has made of progress in Scotland towards the Government's target of reducing the proportion of children living in low income families by a quarter by 2004–05.

David Cairns: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar).

Anne Begg: While it was slightly disappointing that the Government did not hit their target on reducing child poverty, that was partly because the target was very ambitious, and it does not detract from the fact that a large number of children in Scotland have been taken out of poverty. In the next stage, the Government will obviously have to work with the Scottish Executive. There were welcome measures in the Budget, especially regarding the child trust fund, and money was also made available to the Scottish Executive for education. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Scottish Executive how we can ensure that that money is targeted on helping to lift more of Scotland's children out of poverty.

David Cairns: May I just correct my hon. Friend on one point? Although it is true that the Government just failed to meet their target on the reduction of poverty throughout the UK, we actually exceeded the target in Scotland—we met and went beyond it. Of course, that was due to the excellent close partnership that exists between the Government and the Scottish Executive. The measures that we are putting in here, such as the child tax credit, the working tax credit and a 26 per cent. increase in child benefit, together with the measures that the Scottish Executive have put in place have, as a package, meant that we have made great progress on reducing poverty. That shows that the partnership works, and that Opposition parties that want to break that partnership—or mess about with it, as the Liberal Democrats want to do—are playing with fire.

Danny Alexander: Is not the fact that many of the lowest income families face benefit withdrawal rates of 70, 80, or even 90 per cent. one of the major reasons why many children still find themselves living in poverty? Is not tackling that problem, which means that many people are paying effectively higher rates of tax than the top rate of tax, vital for improving incentives to work and thus helping more children out of poverty?

David Cairns: If that were the case, there would have been no reduction in child poverty, but instead there has been a 34 per cent. reduction, which is way ahead of target. That proves that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong and that the child tax credit is helping the poorest families and those on average incomes. The child tax credit, together with all the other measures that we have put in place—the working tax credit and big increases in child benefit—is the reason why we are seeing remarkable and dramatic reductions to poverty in Scotland, so I simply cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Identity Cards

Peter Bone: Whether the introduction of identity cards in Scotland will differ from the process in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Alistair Darling: The introduction of identity cards is a reserved matter. The procedure for issuing them will be exactly the same in Scotland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Peter Bone: Is the Secretary of State happy that the people of Scotland will have a compulsory identity card imposed on them when the Labour manifesto promised a voluntary scheme?

Alistair Darling: I believe that people will support the idea that people have to identify themselves, especially for the purposes of social security payments and in relation to employment and nationality and immigration matters. The whole point of the legislation is to enable us to set up a database. Hon. Members should remember that most people are required to prove their identity now, not just to open bank accounts, but to get passports and so on. It makes sense to put that on a proper basis. When the surveys are carried out, some people are surprised to learn that most people in Scotland do not think that there is anything wrong in principle with having to say who they are when accessing a public service.

Pension Credit

Michael Connarty: What assessment he has made of the impact of pension credit on pensioner poverty in Scotland.

David Cairns: Tackling pensioner poverty is one of this Government's priorities and the pension credit is helping to achieve that. In Scotland, there are currently 338,000 individuals in receipt of pension credit.

Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that 6,000 of his constituents and 5,500 families in my constituency are in receipt of pension credit. However, there are two worrying things. During the election, it was the one issue that pensioners came to me to shake my hand on—although they do not do such things publicly in a gathering—and say that it had changed their lives and lifted them from poverty. First, is it not concerning that 1.2 million pensioners are not claiming their pension credit, the value of which is £1.6 billion? Secondly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One question will do in view of the hour.

David Cairns: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the pension credit is making a big difference, with an average award of an additional £40 for pensioners, and more for the poorest pensioners, which makes a big difference to poor pensioners in his constituency and in mine. Obviously, we want 100 per cent. take-up of the pension credit. I hope that every Member of Parliament will lead the campaign, as I know he is doing in his constituency, to ensure that every pensioner claims what they are entitled to, because it can make a very big difference to their lives.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Power Commission

Richard Burden: What assessment she has made of the implications for the work of her Department of the recommendations of the Power commission.

Bridget Prentice: The Power inquiry made many recommendations about parliamentary and democratic processes and it is a welcome addition to the debate on democratic engagement in Britain.

Richard Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that three issues need to be included in any effective response to the way in which the Power inquiry dealt with the problem of the public's disconnection from the political process? Does she agree that the first thing to address is the need for transparency in party funding, something that should apply equally to Opposition parties and to Government parties? Secondly, does she agree that election, not appointment, should be the cornerstone of any House of Parliament that plays a role in framing the laws of this country? Thirdly, as the Government are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long supplementary question. Two points are good enough.

Bridget Prentice: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know what the third point is on another occasion.
	My hon. Friend is right about transparency in party funding. We have set up the Phillips review to look at that. We are also in positive talks across parties about that transparency. On reform of the House of Lords, he knows that there will be a free vote in this House on the subject.

Simon Hughes: Do Ministers in the Department agree with the first proposal of the Power report, namely, that there should be a rebalancing of power from the Executive and quangos to Parliament and local Government? If so, is she willing to commit her Department to talks with the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats on how we achieve that sooner rather than later?

Bridget Prentice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post at this Question Time and look forward to engaging with him on these questions in future.
	The Department will make a structured response to the Power inquiry. We will identify a number of solutions before we provide that. I know that the inquiry is looking forward to meeting people at the beginning of May to make further progress on some of the debates that it had. It has raised a number of key issues and we will want to respond to them as positively as possible.

Alan Whitehead: One recommendation of the Power inquiry concerns how Parliament might have greater powers to initiate legislation, launch public inquiries and take action on public petitions as methods of communicating better with the public. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity of the forthcoming Joint Committee on the powers of the House of Lords to look at those aspects of the way in which this House works?

Bridget Prentice: Many of those issues will be taken into account in the debates on the reform of the House of Lords. At the end of the day, it is for the Commons to make a decision in a free vote about the composition and structure of the House of Lords. As my hon. Friend will be aware, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has already met the political parties, and is holding discussions with them about the way in which we can take that discussion forward.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the hon. Lady to her enhanced responsibilities. She will be aware that the Power commission recommended a substantially elected second Chamber, and the Lord Chancellor has begun discussions in the hope of bringing that about. Does she not agree with the commission that the main purpose of doing so is to try to establish a second Chamber that has greater legitimacy in holding the Government to account? If so, how does she reconcile that with the Labour manifesto commitment to legislate to weaken the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise the legislation, as the two do not add up?

Bridget Prentice: I do not agree that the two do not add up. When we look at reform it is important that we decide what the relevant processes are and what the House of Lords should do. Most Members of Parliament agree that that is how we should proceed before we decide the composition. I hope that in discussions now and in the near future we can come as close as possible to consensus. There is a wide variety of opinion in the House, as was clear the last time that the issue was debated, when not one of eight options was finally agreed. There is therefore much to discuss and I am sure that we all look forward to doing so.

Small Claims Court

David Kidney: What changes she plans to make to the jurisdiction of small claims courts.

Harriet Harman: The Better Regulation Task Force in its report, "Better Routes to Redress", recommended that research should be carried out into the potential impact of raising the current small claims limit for personal injury cases of £1,000. Work is currently under way to renew all case claim limits.

David Kidney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her reply. On the point of principle, does she accept the distinction between most other cases and housing disrepair and personal injuries? Does she agree with a wide range of organisations, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, Irwin Mitchell—a big law firm—and the TUC that those special cases require much lower jurisdiction so that people can claim their costs if they win their case?

Harriet Harman: The point of principle is to make sure that there is as much access as possible to justice for people who suffer a wrong and require redress. That is the overarching principle, and we will hold discussions with the legal profession, trade unions, insurers, consumer groups and advice agencies. We will look at the work of Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Civil Justice Council when considering the issue, and we will take people's views into account, including those of hon. Members.

Alan Beith: Would not the most valuable improvement in the small claims court be to ensure that its judgments are more effectively enforced? On personal injuries, would it not be a little odd if we allowed a long set limit entirely to erode the opportunity for any small personal injury cases ever to go to the small claims court?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we will bear it in mind.

Nia Griffith: May I amend Question 21, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should ask Question 18.

Nia Griffith: May I amend Question 18, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must await a ministerial answer to Question 18 before asking a supplementary question.

Specialist Support Services

Nia Griffith: If she will reverse the decision to end funding for specialist support services.

Harriet Harman: On 22 March, the Legal Services Commission announced that it had reviewed its earlier decision to terminate those contracts and had informed providers that the contracts will continue.

Nia Griffith: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I tabled the question before the decision was announced, which is why I wished to amend it. Can the Minister confirm that she will ensure that there is full consultation with all the relevant bodies, including the Welsh Assembly Government in the case of the Welsh specialist support service, and that she will announce the responses on the Floor of the House?

Harriet Harman: The Legal Services Commission will have learned lessons from what happened and understood the points made by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend and her colleague from Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the Select Committee. The aim is to ensure that people have as much expert high quality advice as early as possible to resolve legal disputes.

Jonathan Djanogly: We welcome with some relief the announcement by the Legal Services Commission of its intention to postpone its earlier decision. The Minister did not mention that the Government supported the Legal Services Commission in the ending of funding for specialist support services. However, with reference to the proposed review, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of affected lawyers do not want the cuts and believe that they will not save money but will create an even larger shortfall in provision, affecting primarily the poorer and most vulnerable in our society?

Harriet Harman: I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Legal Services Commission makes its own decisions about how it disburses money for the not-for-profit sector. It was a matter for the commission, which has revoked its earlier decision. We welcome that. Secondly, on support for the not-for-profit sector, before 1997, £11 million per year was spent in support for legal services in that sector. Now that figure is £78 million, so the hon. Gentleman is not right to try and give the impression that funding for that sector's provision of legal services has been cut. Quite the reverse is true.

Departmental Pay

Elfyn Llwyd: If she will make a statement on levels of pay in her Department.

Bridget Prentice: The pay offered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs is generally competitive and enables us to employ staff with the skills that we need to provide good quality public services, while making the best use we can of the resources available.

Elfyn Llwyd: I hear what the Minister says, but she will know that levels of pay for the third and fourth pay scales in her Department lag behind 6 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively, compared with average pay in the civil service. What discussions has she had with the Treasury about harmonising pay with other Departments?

Bridget Prentice: We would all agree that pay discrepancies are undesirable. We inherited a variety of pay levels as a result of the creation of Her Majesty's Courts Service. We are holding a review of pay and structures throughout the Department, which I hope will address the issue.

Fine Defaulters

Patrick McFadden: What further steps she plans to take to assist the courts in dealing with people who do not pay fines and who jump bail.

Harriet Harman: Implementation of the new enforcement framework under the Courts Act 2003 was completed yesterday. It includes measures to elicit prompt payment and severe sanctions for defaulters. From April 2007 the national enforcement service will build on current initiatives to strengthen enforcement of all court orders across the criminal justice system.

Patrick McFadden: I am sure the Minister will agree that her constituents and mine want a society with rules, and expect those rules to be enforced. How is it envisaged that the announcement about cracking down on those who evade paying fines will be implemented? Will she consider asking the courts to request more community service penalties where people do not have the financial ability to pay fines?

Harriet Harman: It is important that there is a wider range of penalties for those who default. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that if a court makes an order, it is enforced. If people come to court as a victim or a witness and give evidence, and see a fine or a compensation order imposed which is never paid, that adds insult to injury. We must make sure that non-custodial orders are properly enforced. Then people will feel that justice is being done, without every offender having to be sent to prison.

Coal Health Claims (Solicitors' Fees)

Paddy Tipping: When she last met the Law Society to discuss fees for solicitors involved in coal health claims; and if she will make a statement.

Bridget Prentice: The Government share my hon. Friend's concerns about solicitors double-charging successful claimants. I had a useful meeting with the chairs of the Law Society's regulation board and consumer complaints board on Thursday 23 March—last Thursday—to discuss the matter. The Law Society assured me that it views the matter very seriously and is doing all it can to take disciplinary action and to process claims for redress. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to monitor progress on the issue with the Law Society.

Paddy Tipping: Claimants, backed by their MPs, are working with the Law Society to take up individual cases of redress. Rather than pursuing cases individually, will the Minister pursue the Law Society to take a more comprehensive approach so that we can learn lessons, so that firms can be audited and so that all claimants, rather than just individuals, can be compensated?

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The Law Society has assured me that it, too, takes the matter very seriously. It is planning an advertising campaign using local media to alert those consumers who are entitled to the repayment of fees by their solicitors. I have discussed the issue of taking a more generic approach with the Law Society, which is examining the matter. I can also tell my hon. Friend that the Law Society has already referred 45 solicitors to the tribunal, although no cases have yet been heard.

Community Legal Service (Specialist Support)

Kerry McCarthy: What role her Department played in the process which led to the decision by the Legal Services Commission to end the provision of specialist support services under the community legal service.

Harriet Harman: The Legal Services Commission is the public body charged with the planning and delivery of legal aid, and it is for it to enter into or terminate community legal service contracts and to decide how the money is spent.

Kerry McCarthy: In my constituency, there is woeful under-provision of expert legal advice, particularly for asylum seekers and people who are going through the immigration service, which means that many people are actually pursuing hopeless claims or have been left without any legal advice. I am concerned that the acting chief executive of the LSC seems to think that that need can be met by the Community Legal Service Direct, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees with his take on the matter.

Harriet Harman: CLS Direct, which allows people to phone up and get early legal advice, is an important service that is doing an important job, and it is going to expand. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem, which particularly applies to poorer people in socially excluded areas, with getting access to family and civil legal aid. The truth of the matter is that we have greatly increased the legal aid budget since we entered government in 1997. Despite the fact that there have been fewer criminal cases in the courts, most of the increase—in fact, nearly all of it—has gone on criminal legal aid, and civil and family legal aid has experienced a cut of £200 million, or about 24 per cent. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in trying to make sure that we get a fairer balance within the increased legal aid budget between family and civil legal aid on the one hand and criminal legal aid on the other.

Peerages (Nominations)

James McGovern: Whether the Government plan to change the way nominations to the House of Lords are made.

Bridget Prentice: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, our plans include bringing forward the last stage of House of Lords reform over the coming months, which will include membership and the systems of appointment. As promised in our manifesto, we will allow a free vote on the composition of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that any reforms will be consistent with the primacy of this House.

James McGovern: Given the recent publicity about loans to political parties, which in my view was not so much about the fact that loans were made or who made them, but the implication that those loans were being used to buy privilege, surely the solution is to allow voters to decide who sits in the other place—it would take a very rich person to make a loan to every voter.

Bridget Prentice: As I have said, there will be a free vote on the issue when it comes before the House. On loans, we intend to amend the Electoral Administration Bill to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive, which will obviously affect all political parties. I am sure that we will work together constructively to find a solution that allows for transparency and fairness.

Mark Pritchard: What role does the Minister envisage the Prime Minister retaining in nominating people to the House of Lords?

Bridget Prentice: My apologies for my slow response, but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question at first. The Prime Minister has already said that he is relinquishing his role in the honours system. We will examine House of Lords reform in the round, and there will be a debate on both the composition and processes of the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) has a view on whether the House of Lords should be entirely elected, and the   matter will come to this House as a free vote. TheGovernment have set up the Appointments Commission, and we want to ensure that representation in the House of Lords fairly reflects the wishes of this House.

Gordon Prentice: Should we not all congratulate the Prime Minister on changing his views on the House of Lords? He was resolutely against election and in favour of appointment, but events have so conspired that he has very publicly changed his mind.

Bridget Prentice: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been able to ask a question on this issue which I know has worried him for many a long day. The Prime Minister, along with the rest of the House, will be able to participate in the free vote. He will be able to express whatever opinion he wishes then.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister agree that any inducement offered to secure an honour or peerage is an act of criminality? Is the Minister prepared to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

Bridget Prentice: The matter of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 is for the prosecuting authorities to deal with.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

Honours

Hugh Bayley: If he will bring forward proposals for a Select Committee to be established to make recommendations on the awarding of honours.

Nigel Griffiths: The system for making recommendations for honours has only recently been reformed and the Public Administration Committee can, of course, re-examine the working of it whenever it sees fit.

Hugh Bayley: Public confidence in the honours system is draining away and it is not only because of concerns about party funding. Honours go disproportionately to the establishment, the rich and famous, and civil servants, and women still receive far fewer honours than men. Few people have heard of the Appointments Commission, but they have heard of Parliament. Can we have a statutory Committee of both Houses of Parliament to oversee the honours system in a transparent and accountable way?

Nigel Griffiths: While I am a strong supporter of such statutory Committees, they require the full co-operation of all the parties. They cannot work if one party alone comes clean while the main Opposition parties hide their sources of support.

David Heath: I do not think that my party is hiding anything, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will consider that comment. It is not only the future system that needs addressing, but the shabby events of recent months and years. In that light, does he agree—and will he use hispersonal authority to ensure—that the Public Administration Committee and the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, which are looking into the issue, should have all the access to all the information that they need and all the people they need to see as witnesses, be they civil servants, party apparatchiks, donors, Ministers who knew and Ministers who did not know, consistent with self-incrimination and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite long enough.

Nigel Griffiths: What this House wants is full disclosure of the donations by Michael Brown and others to the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that even today the Liberal Democrats cannot commit themselves to revealing the names of their donors and loaners. It isimportant that there is full co-operation—[Interruption.] There will be full co-operation from this side and we want full co-operation from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he has always regretted it when he has not taken the most radical course of action available. May I remind my hon. Friend that two years ago a Committee of this House recommended a radical and comprehensive reform of the honours system? Does he think that my right hon. Friend now regrets that he did not embrace that more wholeheartedly?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically uncharitable about the steps that have been taken since that distinguished Committee reported in 2004 and the actions in 2005 that set up eight committees that look across the range of areas. Independent appointments are made to those committees, which make recommendations to the Prime Minister. That system seems to have worked rather well. Of course, if improvements can be made, the House waits to hear them.

Theresa May: I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will accept that if confidence is going to be restored in the system, political rants in answer to serious questions in this House will not help that process. During Constitutional Affairs questions, the Minister said that the breaches of the 1925 Act were a matter for the prosecuting authorities. That is indeed the case, which is why Scotland Yard has been called in to investigate whether the Labour party has been selling peerages. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that any system that is put in place to restore public confidence needs to be independent of Members of Parliament, and particularly of the Prime Minister?

Nigel Griffiths: The Prime Minister has already made it very clear that he wishes to stand aside from taking such decisions on nominations, which will require legislation in this House and full co-operation. I think that the hon. Member—[Hon. Members: "Right hon."] I am sorry. I think that the right hon. Member should perhaps have declared her close interest in this. I understand that the tax exile, Lord Ashcroft, made a contribution of some £25,000 to her election campaign. She would have done well to tell the House that, and also to tell the House that she will now disclose all the lenders to the Conservative party.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Disabled Parking (Parliamentary Estate)

Linda Riordan: How many parking places for disabled drivers there are on the House of Commons estate.

Nick Harvey: There are four marked parking spaces for disabled drivers in Star Chamber Court and two in Norman Shaw car park. The roadway markings in Star Chamber Court will be redrawn over the Whitsun recess, with some minor remarking done over the Easter recess to clarify that the two bays affected by the new bollards remain available for use.

Linda Riordan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those reassurances. However, the disabled parking bays in Star Chamber Court have for many months been eaten into by alterations. As they need to be longer and wider to allow for disabled access, could the hon. Gentleman reassure me that four, not three, disabled parking bays will be put back into full use?

Nick Harvey: I can offer the hon. Lady that assurance. We will make certain that four are available for use, and if those do not appear to meet the necessary demand we can always consider other possibilities as well.

Environmental Performance

Norman Baker: What further steps the Commission plans to take to improve the environmental performance of the House.

Nick Harvey: New energy and water policies were adopted by both Houses in late 2005, bringing the parliamentary estate closely into line with efficiency targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for Government Departments. Work with the Carbon Trust since April 2004 is also helping to identify a range of measures that can improve our environmental performance.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the debate on 3 November, serious concern was expressed on both sides of the Chamber about the lamentable environmental performance of this House. Can he confirm that the comments that Members made on that occasion, including those in my report, "How Green is Your Parliament?", will be taken forward and that we will have a full debate later this year when we can consider whether the House has made significant progress on that matter or is still spending almost half a million pounds on useless canopies?

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend's dedication on this issue is known across the House, and he did indeed produce a helpful report late last year. I have already indicated to him that many of the suggestions that he made are being taken up by the House authorities. Later this year, the Commission will produce a further annual report, and I very much hope that time will be made available for a debate on it in the autumn so that my hon. Friend has the chance to satisfy himself that progress is being made.

David Taylor: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the unwanted environmental protection screen cost £422,000. Would not it have been cheaper to supply each of the 646 Members of Parliament with a £20 umbrella from the Commons Shop, costing £12,920 and saving £409,080 that could have been invested in energy-saving measures?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the principal reason for the walkway was environmental—many users of the parliamentary estate had slipped there because of the wet surface. It is also the principal access to the House for disabled people, and the need for a walkway had been identified in that regard. The cost of the walkway has been addressed previously during questions in this House.

Cleaning Services

Richard Bacon: On how many occasions since 10 October the brass fittings in the lift to the Special Gallery West have been polished.

Nick Harvey: The brass fittings in the lift to the Special Gallery West have not been polished for many years. Following professional conservation advice, the policy has been that, to prevent damage, such metalwork should not be polished but regularly cleaned with a dry chamois leather or duster.

Richard Bacon: I thought that we would hear something about conservation. Could we please have some consistency? One has only to visit the Ways and Means Corridor or the Library Corridor to see fittings treated differently. Tourists now visit parts of the Palace that look shabby because of lack of cleaning. It is a disgrace.

Nick Harvey: As I explained, we are following advice in adopting our policy. Given the mixture of heritage and modern brass in the Commons, it would be difficult to begin distinguishing between them. It is therefore considered safer to avoid polishing and let a protective patina build up.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

Business Committee

Nicholas Winterton: If he will bring forward a motion to establish a House of Commons business committee.

Nigel Griffiths: We have no plans to alter the current arrangements for setting House of Commons business.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that non-reply, which was courteously delivered. Does not he accept—as the Leader of the House will accept, as he attended a Hansard Society seminar this morning—that most other legislatures in the world have a business committee? The devolved institutions—the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Parliament in Scotland—have Business Committees. Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that it would help the House to have a business committee and thus bring the business closer to the people who comprise the House, not only Ministers?

Nigel Griffiths: No. Is that direct enough?

Far East Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees

Don Touhig: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the outcome of the review that I announced on 12 December 2005 of the Government's ex gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners of war and civilian internees.
	The review has been thorough. It has been an immense undertaking, requiring a check of nearly 30,000 claim and policy files to determine whether consistent eligibility criteria had been used for civilian internees over the life of the scheme. The review has confirmed that the eligibility rules, based on the 1950s Japanese asset scheme, were the basis for making payments between the introduction of the scheme on 7 November 2000 and March 2001.
	The civilian eligibility criteria under the 1950s scheme were based on normal residence in the United Kingdom at the time of internment. We now know that that was not consistent with the birth-link criterion introduced from March 2001. The birth-link criterion was introduced to expand eligibility, not restrict it. Consequently, the number of former civilian internees who qualified increased by 40 per cent. However, some 245 claimants who were paid under the Japanese asset scheme criteria cannot, on the evidence available, be shown to meet the birth-link criterion.
	Furthermore, some 13 claimants who would have met the Japanese asset scheme criteria were denied payments because they failed to meet the birth-link criterion. Fewer than 20 claimants were paid in error around the time of the introduction of the birth-link criterion, apparently on the basis that they were recorded as British on contemporary camp lists.
	I have considered a wide range of options for how we should proceed in the light of those inconsistencies. I have listened to the views of the Association of British Civilian Internees of the Far East Region. I have met the chair of the all-party group on far east prisoners of war and internees, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and other colleagues.
	I have also looked again at the principle that to qualify, claimants should have a close link to the United Kingdom. That principle has underpinned the scheme from the start, and the fact that decisions were originally based on a 1950s scheme whose criteria included normal residence in the United Kingdom before internment is consistent with that. I have considered very carefully whether this is still a reasonable basis for the Government's definition of those to whom the country owed a debt. I have concluded that it is—a view that was supported by the courts.
	I understand the argument put forward by many that all those who were British subjects at the time—and interned on that basis—should qualify for a payment. However, anyone born in a British colony was a British subject, and many of those people are now the citizens of a country that was given independence, and have never had a close link to the United Kingdom. I have therefore concluded that the right course of action is for there to be a further widening of the scheme to include those who have made some clear commitment or contribution to the United Kingdom.
	On that basis, I have decided to make certain changes to the criteria for civilian internees. First, I am clear that we must include those who were rejected under the birth-link criterion but who would have met the Japanese asset scheme criteria, whether or not they had a Japanese asset scheme record. It would be unfair and improper if, as a matter of policy, claimants who were identical in all significant respects should have succeeded before March 2001 but failed thereafter. These rules will also apply to new claimants.
	Secondly, I have decided to introduce a new provision to include those who have resided in the United Kingdom for at least 20 years since world war two, until November 2000, when the scheme was introduced. I have had discussions with the all-party group and with ABCIFER, and I have listened to their views. Indeed, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and his colleagues, and to Ron Bridge of ABCIFER, whose comments and advice have been extremely helpful as we have all sought to resolve the matter before us. I have chosen the figure of 20 years as a reasonable measure of an individual's commitment to the United Kingdom, meaning that they are likely to have spent at least part of their working life here. This is consistent with the original principle that British civilians should have a close link with the United Kingdom in order to qualify.
	Eligibility will go to anyone who was alive on 7 November 2000, when the scheme was introduced, or to their spouse or estate if they have since died. It will also extend to members of the armed forces of our former colonies, including the Indian army, who similarly meet this residence requirement and were held as prisoners of war. We have previously had reservations about a residence criterion because of the difficulty of providing supporting evidence. However, the 1950s scheme was residence based, and we expect the numbers now to be much smaller, both of which considerations suggest that the task before us should be manageable.
	We also need to resolve details of how the 20-year rule should be applied. We will publish details of the qualifying criteria as soon as they are agreed, and I would ask potential claimants not to apply until then, so that when they do so they can provide the evidence required to process their applications. To that end, I can announce that ABCIFER and the chair of the all-party group on far east prisoners of war have accepted my invitation to join me in a working group to consider how we should take forward these points and resolve them. We assess that the change could admit some 500 new claimants, although the figures cannot be estimated with certainty.
	I should also comment on the birth-link criterion. This was found by the High Court to have resulted in unlawful indirect discrimination. The judgment is the subject of appeals from both sides, and I have decided that we should not take any decisions on its future until that appeal is resolved. The review has shown that, in part at least due to the scale and urgency of the desire on all sides to make payments, there have been shortcomings in administration of the scheme. Those are the subject of a separate ongoing investigation due to be completed in the summer, and I will make a further statement to the House at that time. But our review has shown that the numbers adversely affected—that is, those who met the Japanese asset scheme criteria, but were rejected because they did not have a birth link—represent a very small proportion.
	I apologise deeply for the fact that a number of people did not receive the payment that they should have received. We will address those cases as a matter of urgency, in particular contacting those whom we know to have been affected. The Government have made payments in excess of £250 million since the scheme was introduced, and more than 25,000 people have benefited.
	I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that the steps I have announced today address the one outstanding group who could reasonably claim to have a close link to the United Kingdom based on residence since the war. I am confident that the revised eligibility criteria are a fair reflection of our country's debt to those for whom it could be reasonably said that we have a responsibility. On that basis, I ask the House to support the scheme that I am announcing today, and I commend this statement to the House.

Mark Harper: First, I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement. I welcome the widening of the scheme announced today and his further apology to the House—the fourth that he has had to make. I also welcome his promise that he will deal as a matter of urgency with those who have not received the payment that they should have done. I am afraid that that is as far as my welcome can extend. Following such a thorough and lengthy review—nearly four months in the making—the House could reasonably have expected a comprehensive statement resolving all the outstanding issues and bringing matters to an honourable conclusion. That is not what we have.
	I have some questions on the statement. For the avoidance of all doubt, can the Minister confirm that the first change to the criteria means that the 13 claimants to whom he referred, who would have met the Japanese asset scheme criteria, but were denied payments because they failed to meet the birth-link criterion, will now be paid the £10,000? Can he confirm when they can expect to receive payment? In answer to a written question that I tabled, the Minister confirmed last week that 162 cases were awaiting decision. I would be grateful if he would update the House on when he expects those cases to be decided.
	Given that problems have arisen with the scheme—which, I acknowledge, was welcomed on both sides of the House—because, as the Minister acknowledged, the Ministry of Defence did too much in haste and was not clear about the details, I am concerned about the way in which he made the announcement about the 20-year rule. He has admitted that the details of how the rule should be applied have not yet been resolved and that the number of new claimants cannot be estimated with certainty. There is a danger that he will have raised expectations again, only to see them dashed when the details are resolved. Given the history of this scheme, does he agree that it would have been better to conclude the work on the details prior to today's statement? I welcome the inclusion of ABCIFER and the chairman of the all-party group in the working group to resolve those details, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when he expects those details to be finalised and when he will be able to publish them.
	The Minister touched briefly on the birth-link criterion. Recognising that legal action is ongoing, if the result of the appeal goes against the Government, will he commit to coming to the House at the earliest opportunity thereafter to make an oral statement setting out the implications for the scheme?
	The Minister also mentioned the investigation being conducted by David Watkins, and confirmed that he expects the final report to be available to him by the end of June. In answer to a written question, he confirmed to me that he will make a statement to the House as soon as possible after that. Will he also confirm that he expects that to be an oral statement, enabling Members of the House to raise the questions that they will no doubt have?
	Finally, can the Minister say when he expects to be able to report to the House that the whole matter has been resolved, that all outstanding issues have been cleared up, and that he will not have to return to the House to make further statements?

Don Touhig: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome of my announcement—and I have no problem in coming here four, five or 400 times to apologise. If we have got something wrong, we should own up and apologise. That has been my policy, and it is the policy of this Government.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several points, to which I shall seek to respond. Yes, we have identified 13 claimants who have not been paid. I want that matter resolved as quickly as possible, and if there is any doubt, it should be resolved in favour of the claimants. Yes, a number of claims are yet to be decided—he mentioned the answer that I gave him about the 162 cases. I want to be certain that we get the criteria absolutely right before I reintroduce payments under the scheme, and I hope that the House will bear with me on that.
	Yes, the scheme was introduced in haste. Everyone, on all sides, felt that it was time for us to show our appreciation and sense of value, given the horrible suffering undergone by some of the people concerned. It was felt that that should be recognised properly. We tried to do it rather quickly and—as my statement made clear, and as will doubtless be made clear in the report that I will present to the House later this year—we did not get it right, perhaps because of the speed with which we were acting.
	I cannot give a view on the details of the 20-year rule at this stage. The delay does not mean that I do not have views, or that work has not been done. I have been hugely impressed by the advice and information given to me by ABCIFER and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. For that reason, I want to involve them in the working group so that we can get the criterion right. I do not want to come back and say, or hear my successor say, "Sorry, we got it wrong again." I want to take account of the important contribution made by ABCIFER and by my hon. Friend, and to do a bit of work on that criterion. I hope that the first meeting of our working group will take place immediately after the recess, and that a week or so later we will announce the details of the criterion that will apply to the 20-year rule.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the birth link. If, at the end of the day, the appeal is lost and the birth-link criterion is declared unlawful, we shall not be able to proceed with it. My original ambition was for an arrangement allowing people to qualify under the Japanese asset scheme, plus the birth link, plus any other grounds for qualification; but if the birth link proves to be unlawful, that will not be possible.
	I am always pleased to come back to the House and   make an oral statement, and I shall press for such a statement—but of course that is not entirely in my gift.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for giving notice of his statement. I welcomed the scheme originally introduced by the Government, which put right wrongs that have lasted half a century or so, and I welcome the good news that 500 people will now share in the result of the Minister's statement. Will he confirm, however, that there are still some 4,000 other people who were interned by the imperial Japanese army on the basis that it believed them to be British and they believed themselves to be British? If that is so, and if contemporary camp lists exist—presumably the imperial Japanese army inquired about people's nationalities and beliefs—does that not constitute sufficient grounds?
	Is it not the case that the Ministry of Defence started out with an excellent scheme, but has somehow managed to cause confusion and despair? While it is indeed welcome that 25,000 people have benefited and an additional 500 will benefit, surely something should be done for the nearly 4,000 who believed they were British and whom the imperial Japanese army believed to be British—indeed, it was the very reason why they were interned.

Don Touhig: I accept that there are others, although I cannot be precise about the numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave. I will make inquiries and give him the figures that are available to us.
	There is clearly an issue. As I have said, people feel that because they were interned as British by the Japanese, they should be paid under the scheme regardless of whether they have any link with this country in the sense of ever having lived here. We do not share that view; we take the view that there should be a close link with the United Kingdom. That is why we originally introduced the birth link and why I now propose to introduce a criterion of residence.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the problems that we have experienced with the scheme. But as an old friend of mine, Dick Murray—a Dubliner and a lovely fellow who, sadly, has now died—would say, "If I were going in that direction, I wouldn't start from here." Clearly there are lessons to be learned.
	I have had some wonderful letters from people around the world saying how much they appreciate what we have done. I had one today from a 96-year-old lady who does not qualify, but who received an apology   from me and £500 in recognition of the maladministration that the ombudsman said was the fault of the MOD—a judgment to which we responded. The lady says in her letter:
	"It is a testament to the integrity of the British people that they have assisted and respected their aged subjects who were the prisoners of war of another nation."
	She also invites me to visit her in British Columbia, and gives me her telephone number.
	I think that what we have done thus far is well appreciated, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will get back to him about the numbers.

Andrew Dismore: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today and thank him for the very constructive way in which he has engaged with the all-party group and ABCIFER in trying to find a satisfactory solution to this long-running difficult problem. His approach is very welcome compared with the stonewalling that we had from the Ministry of Defence for far too long on this issue. He has come up with a workable solution that will, as far as I can see, deal with all the outstanding claims that we can identify relating to people who live in the UK. ABCIFER and I look forward to working with him to ensure that the outstanding debt of honour to all those who were imprisoned by the Japanese is honoured as quickly as possible, straight after the East recess.

Don Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We have a very constructive and useful working relationship and, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), my hon. Friend and ABCIFER have an important contribution to make in helping me to get the criteria right, and I look forward to ensuring that we do so.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that more than 2,500 Royal Norfolks were captured by the Japanese when the Singapore garrison surrendered? All those prisoners of war suffered appalling brutality, and many died on the River Kwai rail project. There are very few survivors left, but many impoverished widows. Of course I welcome today's statement, but does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that the Japanese Government have not given more money to the survivors—more than about £100 or so per prisoner—and that surely the second richest country in the world should be doing more to help those survivors and the impoverished widows who are still left?

Don Touhig: The Government, and previous Governments, have made quite clear this country's views about the Japanese Government's attitude in the past to apologies and compensation. I cannot add much more to what the hon. Gentleman says; I am sure that it is a view shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, the Japanese Prime Minister has made an apology. People may well feel that that should be expressed more tangibly, but although I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, my first responsibility is to do something about the people for whom we are responsible. It is our duty to do that, and I am seeking to do it.

Ben Chapman: Although my hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, this issue has always been not just about consistency, but about equity—not just about money, but about honour—and it is important that when the scheme finally comes to fruition, it covers as many people as possible, including my constituent, Mr. Peter Hall. Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the details of the criteria are worked out and the guidelines are issued, they are interpreted as generously as possible?

Don Touhig: Yes, I will certainly do that, working within the framework that I have announced today. A number of colleagues will know that I have been very much involved with the miners' compensation scheme—I have 500 cases in my constituency—and I share the point made by my hon. Friend: what is important for most people is not money, but recognition for the suffering, pain and horrors that they endured. We as a country must recognise that debt of honour; this is a tangible way to do so. There is no way that we can ever put right the wrongs and horrors that those people suffered.

Charles Hendry: I thank the Minister for the statement, and specifically for the tribute that he has paid to my constituent, Ron Bridge, of ABCIFER. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this a very good example of lobbying—quiet, constructive, fact-based and very persistent. Will he say a little about whether the scheme will be retrospective? A lot of the people eligible will be elderly, but some people whose eligibility for the extension will now be established may already have died. Will the scheme cover eligible people who have died and will the money be paid to their families?

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Ron Bridge, who, as I say, has been extremely helpful, informative and constructive in the discussions that I have had with him. Yes, as I have made clear, the scheme will apply to those who were alive on 7 November, when the scheme was originally introduced. If people have died, their widows and estates will benefit as a consequence of the proposal introduced this afternoon.

Lindsay Hoyle: Of course I welcome the announcement today, and as my hon. Friend says, it is right to take a little time to ensure that we get things right this time. My constituent Jim Hodson was a beneficiary of some of the £250 million that the Government made available, and we cannot thank the Government enough on behalf of those POWs of the Japanese. However, as has been mentioned already in the Chamber, there is a clear message to the Japanese Government: they ought to be shamefaced, and they ought to find the money to compensate the people who are still left. We should not let the Japanese Government off the hook. We ought to send them that clear message, and I hope that the Government will raise it on every possible occasion, and say that those people were used as slave labour by the imperial Japanese army, so the people of Japan ought to compensate them properly before it is too late.

Don Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the scheme. I have dealt with his second point, which has already been made by Opposition Members, and I have no doubt that Members' comments will be taken into account by the Japanese and their Government. Whether they respond is a matter for them, but there is no doubt that there are strong feelings on this issue in all parts of the House, and this is the place where they should be expressed.

David Burrowes: I welcome the Minister's statement, and I commend the work of ABCIFER and the cross-party pressure applied by a number of Members, particularly as it affects Diana Elias, a constituent of mine. Nevertheless, is not the delay that has led to this situation a travesty? To get to this point, the Government have had to be dragged through the courts and have had to deal with both the parliamentary ombudsman's complaints and the Public Administration Committee. Will the Minister confirm that he will fully adopt the ombudsman's recommendations? Will he recognise the fact that for constituents such as Diana Elias, the fight not to be treated as a second-class citizen—as someone who is "not quite British enough"—has taken not five years but 60 years to win? In that time, Mrs. Elias's sister and cousin have died, and her brother-in-law has recently been diagnosed with cancer and has only a few months to live. Will the Minister acknowledge that although one could say, "Better late than never", for many it is indeed too late and they have died as second-class citizens?

Don Touhig: I do acknowledge the pain and suffering that Mrs. Elias, her family and others have gone through throughout this process. As I said at the beginning of my statement, there were problems with the criteria that we introduced, which were not consistent. Until I appeared before the Public Administration Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, we believed that they were consistent, and it is the inconsistency that led to some of the difficulties. I fully understand the views that he expresses, and I can only say that I sincerely apologise to Mrs. Elias and others for the grief and worry that has been caused by the manner of the scheme's operation. I am seeking to put that right today to the best of my ability, with, I hope, the support of the whole House. My understanding, based on evidence given in court and on matters considered by the parliamentary ombudsman, is that Mrs. Elias qualifies for the scheme. I hope that that will be the case.

Tony Wright: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his statement, which shows that he has been determined to get to grips with this mess; I hope that his close-link criterion will indeed sort it out. I also thank the parliamentary ombudsman for an excellent investigation that drew attention to the maladministration and injustice in the scheme, and Professor Jack Haywood, whose case went to the ombudsman for investigation. His complaint, reflecting those of others, was not that he wanted the money, which he did not. Rather, he was incensed by being told, in effect, that he was not British enough, despite a lifetime of distinguished service to this country. Has the Minister not said today that Professor Haywood and the ombudsman are right? If so, that is the right outcome.

Don Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points, and I pay tribute to people such as Jack Haywood, who have fought consistently on this issue. There has never been any doubt in my mind, or any other Member's mind, that he is totally British, and I very much regret the inference that he and others have drawn that they are not sufficiently British to qualify. My understanding is that under today's proposals, Professor Haywood will qualify. I might disagree with some of the points made by the ombudsman, but it would be churlish and wrong of me not to pay tribute to the work done by the ombudsman on Parliament's behalf, and to the work of the Public Administration Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I believe passionately that the Government are answerable to this place for their actions, which is why I am here. It is right and proper that Committees such as my hon. Friend's ensure that the Executive are held to account. The work done by the ombudsman points out where we get things wrong—and with the best will in the world, Governments do not get everything right. I am admitting where we got it wrong and seeking to redress that.

Andrew MacKinlay: Last time, I asked the Minister to deal with the question of civilian and service volunteers who now live in the Irish Republic—or the Irish Free State, as it used to be. Will my hon. Friend clarify the position of those people, and how the announcement will affect them? Several hon. Members have, over the past 20 or 30 years, raised the question of parallel circumstances in Germany. I. G. Farben, for example, held and used people not under the Geneva conventions, but as slave labour. I urge the Minister to stick his chest out and remember that eight Conservative Prime Ministers, under 31 years of Conservative government, did nothing to address this issue. He should be proud to have been able to implement the change, notwithstanding the hiccups and shortcomings.

David Davies: Quite a few years of Labour government, too.

Don Touhig: Let us hope and pray that there will be many more years of Labour government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the country feels that way. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for his kind comments, but I cannot specifically answer his query about citizens of the former Irish Free State, now the Irish Republic. I realise that I owe my hon. Friend an answer, so I shall look further into the matter and answer him then. My hon. Friend also asked a question about other prisoners of war—

Andrew MacKinlay: No, slave labour.

Don Touhig: Slave labour, or those interned as a result of conflict. We take the view, as does the House, that those who had to endure Japanese prisoner of war camps had an exceptionally horrible existence. That is exemplified by the fact that 25 per cent. of prisoners of war in the far east died in captivity, as opposed to about 5 per cent. in Europe. That shows why we feel that it is important to do something to recognise the suffering that so many of our fellow citizens had to endure. I hope that the House will welcome what I am doing, and I look forward to working with ABCIFER and the all-party group and updating the House with further statements at the appropriate time.

Point of Order

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you provide some guidance on parliamentary inquiries into what is commonly called the loans or cash for peerages scandal, particularly when Scotland Yard detectives have asked for such inquiries to be delayed, lest they adversely affect police investigations or even a possible criminal trial?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise that matter. As I understand it, no charges have yet been brought, so the normal sub judice rule would not apply. It is therefore for Committees of the House to take their own decisions about the conduct of their business. I understand that the Select Committee on Public Administration has decided to delay its inquiry, which is entirely a matter for a Committee of the House in these circumstances. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

John Hemming: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

John Hemming: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, he should say so. It is not enough to stand in his place, as I am unsure why he is rising. Is this a separate point of order or further to the previous point of order?

John Hemming: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought I had given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order in respect of an answer given yesterday by the Minister for Local Government. That Minister said that he did not accept the premise that the Government have a policy on what the council tax should be or on whether the council tax should be allowed to increase beyond the rate of inflation. I wish to clarify for the House the fact that the Government have had a policy on the council tax, which is called CTSS, council tax for standard spending, and ANCT, assumed national council tax. It is also important to note, for clarification, that the council tax has gone up beyond the rate of inflation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I received no notice that he intended to raise that point of order. I am afraid that his point does not fulfil the criteria for a proper point of order, but he has had his opportunity to put his remarks before the House.

Aid Effectiveness (Independent Evaluation)

Stephen Crabb: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State, when reporting on departmental expenditure, to publish an independent evaluation and measurement of the effectiveness of United Kingdom bilateral aid projects in reducing poverty and a comparison of the effectiveness of different projects and forms of aid in reducing poverty; to require the Secretary of State to redirect resources towards the most effective projects and forms of aid; and for connected purposes.
	Throughout the past year I have been struck time and again by the commitment of people from all walks of life to the campaign to make poverty history. It captured public imagination and galvanised support across social boundaries and partisan divisions in a way that few other grassroots campaigns have managed to achieve in recent years. Many people still wear their "Make Poverty History" wristbands, not just from forgetfulness or as a fashion item, but from a lasting desire to see the overarching goal of the campaign realised—that the grinding poverty and misery that so many people on the planet face daily should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
	Aid is only one part of a complex set of issues that can make a difference to the developing world, but more aid, delivered more effectively, has a key role to play in ending global poverty. However, as 2005 grew to a close I sensed some disillusion in the "Make Poverty History" campaign, as domestic concerns about terrorism and security diverted attention from it, and the disappointing outcome of the Hong Kong trade summit seemed to lead to a dissipation of the excitement and energy of some of the activists.
	The best way to restore enthusiasm to all the people who campaigned, marched and wrote letters to us all is for the Government to demonstrate real follow-through on the rhetoric and to show tangible progress on meeting the eight millennium development goals that form the bedrock of our international development strategy. To that end, much better linkage must be shown between high-level development rhetoric, the nature of our international aid and interventions and the outcomes achieved on the ground in terms of poverty reduction, lives saved, children educated and all the other relevant indicators that the public understand and seek.
	My Bill aims to strengthen that linkage. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), whose International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill has stimulated much discussion about how we can lock Department for International Development Ministers into a clear framework of accountability. His Bill represents an extremely useful and substantial step forward, especially as it places Parliament at the centre of the accountability process. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on both the Bill and the skilful way in which he is piloting it through this place. I am extremely impressed by the degree of cross-party consensus it has achieved.
	My Bill would provide a useful complement to that of the right hon. Gentleman. At its heart is a requirement that the Secretary of State regularly publish an independent evaluation of UK aid projects. In recent years, calls have been made repeatedly for greater evaluation, and more independent evaluation, of DFID activities. The sixth report of the International Development Committee in the last Parliament urged DFID to ensure the independence of evaluation by, first, increasing the proportion of evaluations conducted by external evaluators and, secondly, ensuring that the results of all its evaluations were made publicly available. Above all, it said that careful thought must be given to the ways in which the monitoring of DFID's progress against the millennium development goals can be more closely integrated with the monitoring of the Department's individual programmes and projects.
	A year after the Select Committee report, the Department published an internal document entitled "How Effective Is DFID?", which observed:
	"Compared with some other agencies, DFID spends a much lower proportion of its budget on independent evaluation, and evaluates a much lower proportion of its activities."
	My Bill would help to close the gap in independent evaluation and meet some of the criticisms that have been raised.
	Let us be clear: we are not talking about the mere reporting of data and the repackaging of departmental data. That would not be good enough; it would be no substitute for a systematic and independent assessment of effectiveness. As the DFID effectiveness report demonstrated, a large volume of performance information may already be available, but there is
	"generally insufficient information on the links between DFID's inputs and interventions on the one hand, and the positive outcomes observed on the other".
	Higher priority must be given to performance assessment and evaluation so that DFID can better understand its own organisational effectiveness and its contribution to successful international development.
	The Bill would certainly make sure that such evaluation received higher priority by making it a statutory requirement. Again, I emphasise the importance of independent evaluation. To quote again from the DFID effectiveness document: the Department
	"needs to be more confident about independent verification and assessment by its partners and others, and to increase the resources allocated to evaluation".
	My Bill also requires the Secretary of State to publish a comparison of the different types of aid project and the different forms of aid that we support. DFID spends about £4 billion each year on a variety of programmes that are delivered through different mechanisms. Some of that spending takes the form of bilateral aid; some is multilateral. We need to achieve a far better understanding of the relative effectiveness of the main types of aid that we provide. The independent evaluation envisaged in the Bill should, I hope, provide the evidential basis, which will in turn lead to better decision making about which aid programmes should be targeted to ensure the greatest possible reduction in poverty.
	Anyone who has spent any time at all reading through the literature about aid effectiveness will be aware that the territory is hotly contested. There is a great deal of conflicting evidence about what constitutes good aid and what constitutes bad aid. Measuring the effectiveness of aid is difficult and it is easy to talk about it in general terms, but it is essential that every effort is made to improve this discipline. I have been extremely impressed by the DFID officials whom I have met and by the Secretary of State, who brings unquestionable commitment to his job. I am confident that they would wish this agenda to be developed in their Department.
	The rigorous, independent evaluation of our aid spending promoted by the Bill should not just ensure best value for taxpayers' money—by securing the best possible poverty reduction outcomes—but strengthen and sustain public support for our aid. Over the past year, a huge number of people have invested their time, resources and energy in campaigning for an end to the obscene levels of poverty in the developing world. They are not just looking for warm rhetoric from this place or even for grand announcements that focus on the funding for our aid programmes and other inputs. Instead, they want to see and understand the outputs—the real, tangible difference being made by our international aid—and to see how much further there is to go before poverty really is made history.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Crabb, John Bercow, Tim Farron, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Mr. Gary Streeter and Daniel Kawczynski.

Aid Effectiveness (Independent Evaluation)

Mr. Stephen Crabb accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, when reporting on departmental expenditure, to publish an independent evaluation and measurement of the effectiveness of United Kingdom bilateral aid projects in reducing poverty and a comparison of the effectiveness of different projects and forms of aid in reducing poverty; to require the Secretary of State to redirect resources towards the most effective projects and forms of aid; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 157].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	WAYS AND MEANS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 March.]

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	(1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
	  (a)   for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
	  (b)   for refunding an amount of tax;
	  (c)   for any relief, other than a relief that—
	  (i)   so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	  (ii)   so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]
	Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Alan Johnson: This year's Budget equips British business to meet the challenges of globalisation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask anyone who has a cell phone still switched on please to switch it off? It is causing disturbance.

Alan Johnson: The Budget enhances Britain's strong economy, entrenches stability and widens opportunity. Today, there are 105,000 more self-employed people, 575,000 more businesses and 2.4 million more people in work than there were in 1997. Crucial sectors such as the pharmaceutical, aerospace and financial services sectors are thriving. Our scientists are leading the way in areas such as stem cell research and nanotechnology. Last year, our economy grew faster than those of France, Germany and the eurozone as a whole. The Budget builds on that success while meeting the growing challenges of globalisation, including, in particular, the phenomenal growth of China and India.
	Raising productivity is central to meeting the challenge. We are now in the longest period of sustained productivity growth since the 1960s. We have closed the productivity gap with Germany, overtaken Japan and halved the gap with France. Britain is the only G7 country to have kept up with US rates of productivity growth, in stark contrast with France and Germany.
	Our success is all the more remarkable for having been achieved at the same time as an increase of 2.3 million in  jobs. Achieving productivity growth and high employment at once is not an easy trick because one often rises at the expense of the other, but it is the formula for national wealth. We know that we still have further to go to raise Britain's productivity. The Budget enhances the drivers of productivity—innovation, investment, skills, competition, enterprise and investment.
	Since 1997, we have invested unprecedented sums in Britain's science base. Funding levels are now double what they were. We also introduced the research and development tax credit and put in place a target to increase the share of national income that we spend on R and D from 1.8 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. by 2014. Today, there are 750,000 more science, engineering and technology graduates than there were in 1997, and the share of firms bringing new products to market is up by 50 per cent. Our world-beating proportion of scientific papers and citations has increased. In addition, the number of university spin-outs has trebled, and they now run at an average of 200 a year. In the past two years, 18 spin-out companies—with a combined value of more than £600 million today—gained listing on the London stock exchange.
	The Budget builds on that record and advances the goals of the 10-year science and innovation framework to ensure that we maximise the impact of science funding. Raising levels of business R and D is key to raising productivity. Since 1997, business R and D investment has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms, and the R and D tax credit is driving the new investment that we need. So far, £1.5 billion of support has been claimed, and Deloitte has assessed the UK's R and D tax credit as being among the world's most attractive regimes.
	The Budget sets out our intention to extend the higher rate of the R and D tax credit to companies with between 250 and 500 employees. Business lobbied for such a measure and Sir George Cox recommended it in his review of creativity in business. We will also widen the remit of the technology strategy board to stimulate innovation in the areas that offer the greatest scope for productivity improvements. I am delighted to announce today the latest £80 million competition for the collaboration R and D fund under the technology programme. It will help to fund new collaborative research in vital areas underpinning our technology strategy, such as low-carbon energy technologies and innovative manufacturing processes.
	To improve productivity, the links between science and innovation are crucial. We have set out plans for a radically simplified allocation of the £1.5 billion a year that we invest in scientific discovery to make the best use of that investment.

Henry Bellingham: Am I right in saying that business investment has fallen to its lowest level for the past 10 years? Does it worry the right hon. Gentleman, as a former higher education Minister, that various university science and chemistry departments have closed recently?

Alan Johnson: Business investment has grown on average by 5 per cent. a year since 1997, compared with a growth of 3.4 per cent. in the previous 10 years. It was worth £77 billion in 1996, but is now worth £113 billion, and it will rise to £126 billion by 2008. Yes, I am concerned about the closure of chemistry departments—I think that that happened at Sussex—but the hon. Gentleman and I   know that universities are independent. If he looks around the university world, he will see good stories from other universities throughout the country.

Phil Willis: I apologise for arriving just after the right hon. Gentleman started his speech. On research and development and, especially, pulling what I call the basic research out of universities and into wealth creation, why did the Chancellor not examine in his Budget statement putting solid third-stream funding into the research councils and making that available to industry? Without that, surely we will start robbing Peter to pay Paul by taking out basic research money and applying it to knowledge-transfer and third-stream funding systems.

Alan Johnson: I am coming on to announcements in the Budget on R and D, particularly in the health service, but in terms of our total science base, doubling the amount of money available for science, operating through both the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils, is the right way forward. We are always willing to consider more investment. It is crucial to get science and innovation into the same place.
	The Budget also announced the creation of a single budget—this is pertinent to the hon. Gentleman's comments—for the Medical Research Council and NHS health research, worth at least £1 billion a year. That will ensure a more coherent framework for health research and development. We will now look at the best institutional arrangements to achieve that. We have also decided that the Harwell site, which includes the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, and the Daresbury site should become the Harwell and Daresbury science and innovation campuses respectively. We will develop those campuses to ensure that their facilities are internationally competitive, support world-class science and maximise opportunities for knowledge transfer.
	As well as a strong science base, we need to invest in the scientists of tomorrow. Since 1997, the number of new science teachers has increased by 30 per cent., but we must do more, and the Budget includes incentives for more physics and chemistry graduates to move into teaching. We are also giving pupils a right to study three separate sciences at GCSE and increasing funding for after-school science clubs.
	We need to improve mechanisms to turn our great science base into greater wealth. Over the next two years, we will put £100 million into the enterprise capital funds scheme to help high-risk, high-growth companies bridge the equity gap—the funding problem that they experience when they are too big to finance from their own resources, but too small to be of interest to venture capitalists. We will also launch a scholarship scheme to help UK science, engineering and technology graduates develop entrepreneurial skills by spending six months in the US with leading universities and enterprises. The scheme will be administered by the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in the United States.
	Tackling regulation is vital to the success of enterprise—another key driver of productivity. At the Department of Trade and Industry, we have demonstrated that we are serious, with our £1 billion regulatory simplification plan, which will produce a significant cut in business burdens. The Budget includes further measures, with a commitment to cut the time business spends filling in tax forms and returns, as well as cutting the administrative burdens of tax audits and inspections. We are also putting the recommendations of the Hampton review into law, as well as ensuring more risk-based targeted enforcement at local authority level. That will release the vast majority of honest and compliant businesses from unnecessary and time-consuming interventions.
	A number of schemes are in place to support enterprise. We need to ensure that they are accessible, focused and well targeted. At the DTI, we have already reduced more than 100 business support products to fewer than 10, so they are better tailored to customer needs. The Budget extends that principle and aims to reduce the number of business support schemes from 3,000 to 100 by 2010. More than £2 billion a year is spent on business support. The review will ensure that we get value for money.
	It is also vital that we examine the effectiveness and efficiency of our regional structures. The regional development agencies were created as a response to global pressures, where local action is often the right response. Our review will ensure that the RDAs have the links, incentive and powers they need to drive economic growth regionally.
	We must also improve the way in which we market our strengths abroad and help British business to meet the challenges of globalisation. The new chief executive of UK Trade and Investment, Andrew Cahn, shares that ambition. Before the summer, we will publish a new five-year strategy for UKTI. It will aim to deliver maximum value for business and the taxpayer. We are intensifying our efforts to expand UK trade into India and China. We are also putting £9 million of new investment into a global R and D strategy to attract more business R and D to the UK, and to promote Britain's innovative firms abroad.
	Another major challenge identified in the Budget is gender inequality at work, which, according to the women and work commission, costs Britain £23 billion a year in lost gross domestic product and prevents the economy from reaching its full productive potential. Since 1997, a combination of tax credits, the minimum wage and the new deal has made work pay and boosted employment, particularly among women, so that a record 70 per cent. of women are in work and our overall employment rate of nearly 75 per cent. is among the highest in the world. Our aim is to increase it to 80 per cent.—higher than any major economy has ever achieved—so helping more women back to work will play a vital role. The Work and Families Bill, which is proceeding through the House, will help everyone better to balance their work and family responsibilities.
	The Budget boosted child care. Today, there are 1.2 million more child care places than in 1997—an increase of 90 per cent. All parents are entitled to help with child care, either through tax credits or vouchers. The Budget helped employers to support parents with child care, both through the tax system and through capital grants to help small and medium-sized employers to establish workplace nurseries. Further help is available for low-skilled women who find it difficult to access the job market and move up the skills ladder. Those and other measures will help to address the issues highlighted by the women and work commission, and they follow last week's announcement of an increase in the national minimum wage to £5.35, which will benefit 1.3 million workers, two thirds of whom are women.
	A growing economy depends on safe and sustainable energy supplies, but climate change endangers the very future of our planet. Today, I have published our microgeneration strategy alongside the climate change review. It sets out what more we can do to boost the use of decentralised energy in our homes, schools and businesses, thus taking forward the Budget announcement of an initial extra £50 million for microgeneration technologies, which is additional to the £30 million that has already been announced.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Edward Davey: rose—

David Howarth: rose—

Alan Johnson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).

Edward Davey: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I am sure that my hon. Friends have much better questions than I have, and that he will give way to them shortly. Given the Secretary of State's welcome statement on microgeneration, what is the cost of Budget resolution 47, which is entitled, "Corporation tax (nuclear decommissioning)"? Is it designed to help the proposed sell-off of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., and why was a press notice not issued giving the details of the tax change?

Alan Johnson: I do not know whether all three Members wished to ask the same question but, on that resolution, we are the first Government to tackle seriously the problem of nuclear decommissioning. It is an horrendous task, and it is split between various agencies that have such a complicated connection to one another that it almost impossible to explain it on a grid. We must rationalise the issue and ensure that elements in public ownership that do not need to be in public ownership to meet our objectives on decommissioning are put into the private sector. We must ensure, too, that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has the right resources to carry out its important task.

Martin Horwood: The Secretary of State applauded the Chancellor's inclusion of microgeneration budgets for Government buildings, but he was curiously silent about the clear skies programme, which supported household microgeneration but has run out of funds. Will he confirm whether it will be abolished or replaced, perhaps by another scheme to encourage household microgeneration?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman was right about replacement, as we have made it plain that the clear skies scheme will be replaced by another scheme. Our microgeneration strategy will help schools and public buildings by removing problems with planning consent and so on. The money that has been provided will be used to encourage householders to become involved in microgeneration. A colleague who is much more deeply involved in microgeneration in his own home than I am has to pay £8 a therm to buy back the energy that he sells to the national grid. Such issues have to be tackled. The strategy is for microgeneration in schools, public buildings and the home.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State is outlining the steps that the Government are taking to reduce CO 2 emissions, and I look forward to his remarks. As the Prime Minister said on Australian television today, Great Britain accounts for only 2 per cent. of CO 2 emissions. China is the main polluter and will continue to be so in the future. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to have discussions with his Chinese counterpart to encourage China to take similar steps?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We cannot solve the problem domestically. The kind of initiatives that we have taken with the G8, which was extended to include Brazil, China, India and other developing countries, are continuing under the Russian presidency of the G8. The hon. Gentleman asks what steps I have taken. At the EU-China summit last year when the UK had the presidency, one of the important objectives of our trip to China was to begin to share with China some of the clean coal technology, such as carbon capture and carbon storage. It is crucial that we do not use the emerging carbon sequestration technologies only in Europe, and that we share our scientific lead with China and India.

David Howarth: May I bring the Secretary of State back to Budget resolution 47 and ask what precise changes in corporation tax are being proposed for nuclear decommissioning?

Alan Johnson: I have dealt with Budget resolution 47.
	The microgeneration strategy will examine how we can tackle the obstacles to take-up. In particular, we will look at the planning regime, the potential rewards available from exporting electricity back into the grid and the possibility of developing an accreditation scheme, so that people know which products and installations to trust. We will also work with the industry to develop a scheme for installing microgeneration in schools so that we can educate the next generation about the need for energy efficiency and renewables.
	It is vital that British business takes advantage of new energy-efficient technologies to reduce its costs and help the environment. Over the next 10 years up to £1 billion will be invested in a new national institute for energy technologies in a 50:50 partnership between Government and business. BP, EDF Energy, E.ON UK and Shell have already expressed interest in taking part.
	We will also bring forward a detailed consultation on what more we can do to promote large scale commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage. As the Budget and the current energy review show, we are serious about tackling climate change and will take the tough decisions necessary to deliver real reductions in carbon. We have seized the agenda since 1997. As a result, we have beaten our Kyoto targets.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister says that the Government are serious about reducing carbon emissions and tackling global warming and climate change. Will he give a commitment to the House today to look again at the imbalance in connection charges between the north of Scotland and the south of England—the south of England being subsidised and the north of Scotland being charged about £24 per kilowatt to connect to the grid—to assist in making large scale off-shore wind production financially attractive?

Alan Johnson: I can give the assurance that in the energy review that is one specific aspect that we will be examining. I agree that the problem needs to be resolved.
	The climate change levy package has saved over 28 million tonnes of carbon since it was introduced, and is expected to save a further 6 million tonnes a year, so that by 2010 it will account for 40 per cent. of the UK's total carbon reductions. The Budget announced that from next year the climate change levy will increase in line with inflation. Even after taking into account these increased rates, business will still benefit from the overall climate change levy package. The 0.3 per cent. reduction in national insurance contributions brought in at the same time as the levy saves business £900 million a year, whereas the levy costs about £600 million a year. The Conservative party remains opposed to that progressive measure. If we were to follow its approach, there would be a further 6 million tonnes of carbon a year in the atmosphere, which is equivalent to the combined emissions from Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield.
	Climate change is not only an issue for business. The Budget includes measures to insulate a further 250,000 homes over the next two years, bringing forward annual carbon savings of 35,000 tonnes and reducing annual household bills by around £20 million. We will also put £5 million over the next two years into a new large-scale trial of smart metering, which will be matched by private sector funding. That will help us, as consumers, to understand and look harder at our own energy consumption.
	In conclusion, this is a forward-looking Budget. It equips today's Britain for tomorrow's vital challenges. It reduces burdens, promotes competitiveness and raises productivity. It is a Budget for business and it is a Budget for industry, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: I have watched all 10 of the Budgets delivered by the Chancellor, and none of us who has watched him doubts that they are always skilfully honed. He is a master of propaganda rather than enlightenment. We have long since learned that what is in the Budget on the day is not what matters and that most of the pain lies in the small print that is not announced on the day.
	All Budgets need time to settle for everyone to digest them. This Budget does not involve great drama, because there is no fundamental restructuring or revolutionary changes of gear. There is no real point in engaging in an auction of hyperbole in which one side says that the Budget is all fabulous and the other says that it is all disastrous. This Budget needs a more dispassionate assessment of the context in which it has been designed. [Interruption.] Even in this House, there are moments to stand back and consider the long-term trends, which is exactly what I want to do today.
	I shall admit something else to enliven the House. Some say that the two sides of this House have so converged that one can no longer tell us apart, but they are totally wrong. Labour has had to prove over the years that it understands and embraces market economics, while we have had to reassert our belief in social justice, but what divides us is tax and the power of the state. The Chancellor is inclined to tax anything that moves and do anything that he can get away with; we believe in lowering taxes wherever possible and that any new tax must be justified. The Chancellor believes that state action and centrally directed initiatives are the solution to most national problems; we believe that the creativity and aspiration of the individual, free from state interference, is the greatest engine of progress and improvement. We appreciate more than the Chancellor that only private prosperity can pay for public services—when we think of wealth, profit and prosperity, we say, "Go make it", while he says, "Go take it".
	The Chancellor makes much of his fiscal rules: first, that he should balance the budget over the economic cycle, and secondly, that he should borrow for investment, not merely for spending. However, he took some pride in rejecting what he called a third fiscal rule, namely that spending should rise more slowly than growth. Perhaps that policy marks the difference between us, because it contains both a grave admission and the seeds of its own destruction. If spending increases more slowly than growth, then the state takes a smaller proportion of GDP. If spending increases ever faster than growth, which is the opposite of the fiscal rule that he has rejected, then the state takes an ever-larger proportion of GDP, which leads to more spending, higher taxes and greater borrowing—what was 40 per cent. can become 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent. The effect is a bit like flesh-eating bacteria: it is so self-consuming that if one were to carry the Chancellor's course to its logical outcome, the British economy would disappear up its own origins. But fortunately the people can stop it.
	Everything is up against its limits. That is not my opinion, but that of the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell). I have a little clip that states:
	"A Government minister who admitted that Labour had taxed people to 'the limit' was rebuked by the Treasury last night"—
	[Interruption.] I am told that that was quite right. It continues:
	"Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, said, while launching a White Paper on further education: 'We are probably about at the limit of what people are prepared to pay to improve public services.'
	The Treasury issued a firm rebuke to the minister".
	The Chancellor is running out of tricks and wheezes to expropriate any more revenue, but that admission signifies what is to come. With a majority of only 97 in Harlow, the Minister knows something about being up against his limits.
	The danger is that the Chancellor will run out of flexibility. As The Economist said:
	"If, for example, the economy runs into trouble later this decade, then his plans for apparently modest public spending growth may yet prove unaffordable, just when they might be most needed. The chancellor was fortunate to inherit a strong economy whose public finances were improving sharply. If Mr Brown's inheritance as prime minister is a weakening economy and a chronic budget deficit, he will have only one person to blame: himself."
	This is the Chancellor who has doubled the council tax and destroyed pensions. This is the Chancellor who is guilty of causing the pain of ever-rising council tax and who is guilty of the unforgivable larceny of seeing the best-funded pension provision in Europe reduced to ashes.
	It is not the little announcements in the Budget that will be dwelt on, but the underlying trends and pressures that Britain faces. It is not a million quid here or there, but the incidence and burden of tax and our competitive position and skills base that will determine our prospects in the longer term.
	Even now we can see that the Chancellor's favoured structures are coming under strain. NHS deficits are a major crack in his ill-crafted model of public services. He can boast about the extra billions, but not only do they have to be paid for, they are not solving the problem. We do not have a perfect national health service: we have deficits, closures and lay-offs. He may well have doubled his spending, but now he will have to double the size of the House of Lords to pay off the deficits.
	Competition in the modern world is becoming more and more ferocious. Comparative weakness can be seized on, with the swift transfer of capital to better options. Comparative advantage is more and more difficult to define and retain. Mature economies such as ours, with higher welfare costs and high social standards, carry those costs while having at the same time to compete with the likes of India, China and eastern Europe—all at a different stage of development. Our fortunes will not be shaped in any sudden way by the contents of one Budget. They will be determined by the gradual and continuing force of global competition. Despite what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said a moment ago, there are some very worrying trends.
	Britain has dropped from fourth to 13th in the World Economic Forum competitiveness table since 1997. Just today, we learn that The Economist intelligence unit survey of how favourable a country is for foreign investment shows that the UK has fallen from fourth to seventh, because of concerns about tax levels, regulation, poor transport infrastructure and low levels of productivity. It is no triumph to be overtaken by Finland, Holland and Ireland.
	Productivity growth has slowed under this Labour Government and, last year, it actually fell to zero for a time. Under the last Conservative Government, we were catching up with France and the USA, but under this Government we are losing ground. Last year, business investment, at 9.1 per cent. of GDP fell to the lowest level since records began and the number of new companies registered actually fell.

Edward Miliband: On a point of fact, does the hon. Gentleman accept that annual average productivity growth in this cycle has been 2.3 per cent., against 2 per cent. in the last cycle—[Interruption.] I see that the shadow Chancellor is trying to give the hon. Gentleman the answer, but perhaps he could respond to my question.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is always changing the cycle and the base in order to churn out statistics that suit him. We take a broader and more honest view of the figures.
	The Chancellor talks a lot about skills. In his Budget, as if it were some communist five-year plan for tractor production, he said of the UK:
	"By 2020, it will need 14 million highly skilled workers. And of 3.4 million unskilled jobs today, we will need only 600,000 by 2020."—[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 292.]
	The extraordinary certainty with which he asserts those figures is distressing enough, but not all parts of Government share in his enthusiasm for science-based skills. It was staggering to be given a letter that an Ofsted inspector wrote to the children of a primary school in my constituency after an Ofsted inspection—a practice that I do not think is appropriate, particularly when it includes the sentence:
	"we think that you ought to spend more time on subjects other than English, mathematics and science."
	[Interruption.] I will repeat it for the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), if he really thinks that he approves of such a letter. An Ofsted inspector has written to primary school children suggesting that they ought to spend less time on mathematics, science and English. How are we going to reach the required standards in our primary schools if that is the attitude of Ofsted inspectors?
	Let me take an article by Sir John Rose from the Chancellor's newly appointed business advisory council, who says:
	"The key to competitiveness and productivity is a strong educational base that can create a well-educated workforce."
	No one can disagree with that. He goes on:
	"In our schools, some of the key, science-based subjects are in decline. The number of sixth-formers taking A-level physics, for example, has fallen 30 per cent. over the past 15 years. More generally, there has been a decline in science and maths as a proportion of A-level passes.
	At university level our students are increasingly failing to find engineering-based subjects attractive—the number of electronic and electrical-engineering students has fallen by more that 30 per cent. in the past two years alone. More than half of all engineering doctorates awarded in Britain are gained by overseas students."
	At least that is an example of what may be good advice heading in the direction of the Chancellor.
	As if the skills problem were not bad enough on its own, we have the added burden of regulations. Every single year, the EU alone issues 100 to 150 directives and 3,500 regulations.

Anne Main: I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my disgust at some of the daft regulations that come out of Europe. Speaking as the Member for the home of the international organ festival, does he share my slight glimmer of hope that there may be an exemption for the pipe industry, and will he urge the Government to press forward with making sure that that industry is exempt from this daft regulation, which may threaten our liturgical music?

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hazardous waste directive banning the use of lead in new electrical products appears to threaten the restoration and building of church organs. We were partly heartened by the response of the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), in Trade and Industry questions last week. He said that restoration would not be subject to the directive, but he was ambiguous and ambivalent about whether newly built organ pipes would be exempt and said that they would have to apply for an exemption. Will the Secretary of State apply for a general exemption on the industry's behalf, or will each company have to apply for an exemption individually?

Alan Johnson: indicated dissent.

Alan Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman declines to tell the House. He should be on top of the issue and able to tell us. The Budget is about the prosperity and success of business, many of them small businesses such as those that make and restore organs. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to tell us whether they are going to be able to survive the regulatory regime that we are discussing, he is not doing his job properly.
	I have found no end of examples of directives, many of which would suffice as a paragraph but are, when they come to us, seven, eight or nine pages long. We have the Food (Jelly Confectionery) (Emergency Control) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which runs to six pages, and the Food (Jelly Mini-Cups) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. When I wrote my election address, little did I appreciate that we were so severely at risk from an imminent invasion of jelly cups. Those who show enough enterprise to start or run a business quickly find themselves swimming in treacle. They immediately get an enormous book. We need a "Treacle Swimming Emergency (Britain) Order" to rescue their prospects. Any business person faces an enormous burden and uncertainty under the Government.
	The operating and financial review was a sad and sorry tale. Was the Secretary of State told about it before the Chancellor abolished it? [Interruption.] One Minister claims that he was while the Secretary of State shakes his head. The Chancellor abolished the operating and financial review. Companies subsequently said that they would prefer to have it because they had spent all the money preparing for it. The Chancellor then said that we would have it back. A statutory instrument was passed to get rid of it but it remains in the Company Law Reform Bill. That is a mess. Businesses need certainty and consistency so that they can decide how to invest and know how they spend their money.

Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Department realised that the Chancellor would abolish the home computer initiative? He probably knows that Department officials were being given computers but will now be charged £200 a year because of the Chancellor's decision.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Department website stated:
	"One of the most effective ways of realising the potential of the workforce and the organisation is for employers to make computers for home use available to as many employees as possible. Basic computer and technology skills are now regarded as essential for the majority of jobs . . . Home Computing Initiatives . . . are an extremely powerful catalyst for any organisation that wants to exploit the clear and indisputable link between individual learning, workplace productivity and overall competitiveness."
	The Chancellor has not only scrapped those initiatives and is sending a bill to many employees, but work-life balance goes out of the window.
	There have also been some strange announcements about corporation tax. Two changes were announced. First, the 0 per cent. rate has been abolished—the Institute for Fiscal Studies described that as an "unfortunate experience". The Chancellor made the bizarre claim in the Budget that that "simplification" would save business £9 million. Secondly, thresholds remain unchanged and have not even been uprated with inflation. We now have more corporation tax than Sweden.
	Eight years into the Government's tenure, there are 3,000 business support schemes. Every time the Chancellor opens his mouth, he seeks a headline and launches a scheme. Eight years on, there are so many that they are out of control and lack any coherent structure. It is no wonder that the Government have set a new target. They said:
	"We will work . . . to reduce the number of business support services from around 3,000 now, to no more than 100 by 2010."—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 642W.]
	The difference between 3,000 and 100 is so massive that it makes one wonder why the Government have not done something about it earlier.
	Business likes a stable framework in which it can invest. It does not like erratic public policy. We have had the saga of the operating and financial review and, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, we now have the saga of laptops.
	During this Parliament, Qinetiq and Westinghouse have been sold. However, we have not had any clear statement of the Government's policy on privatisation and the sale of assets. At least—one might also say, "at last"—the Chancellor has said something in the Budget about his future intentions. If he is to dispose of £30 billion of assets before 2010, I hope that he will at least make some shares available to the general public and not treat them, as his special adviser does, as old grannies in blouses to be contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant to wider share ownership.
	The Secretary of State referred to the energy review. Almost all the Government's existing policy objectives have not been fulfilled. Today, we have had the climate change programme review, which shows that we are missing our emissions targets. A second objective was to seek reliability in energy supplies, yet we have recently experienced a gas balancing alert and punitive gas prices. A third objective was to eliminate fuel poverty, but the Government estimate that the number of vulnerable households in fuel poverty is due to rise by 1 million. The climate change levy is a tax on energy, but we need to bear down on emissions. We are taking the energy review seriously, but it seems as though the Prime Minister is semi-detached from his own.
	The Chancellor hardly dared to mention pensioners in the Budget. That was hardly surprising, given that what he has not already destroyed, he cannot now afford. At a time when the hard-pressed private sector is carrying an ever-growing public sector, this Secretary of State did a deal. He caved in to the unions over central Government pensions and has thereby enraged those who work in local government. Those in the private sector are working longer and have less pension security, and today we have seen the biggest strike since 1926. One estimate puts the total liabilities in unfunded public sector pensions at nearly £1 trillion. Is the Secretary of State still prepared to claim that he is the Minister responsible for public pensions?

Alan Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who said that he thought that that was the right deal to do, and that it was fair to staff who were already in post?

Alan Duncan: I always agree with my Front Bench colleagues, although I have little doubt that the Secretary of State has misinterpreted what my hon. Friend said.

Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No, I will not.
	In looking back at the Budget, we need to look at the broad direction in which our economy is heading, and in which it risks heading further. We need an economy with lower regulation and higher skills. We need one with more consistency and less chop and change. We need one with an imaginative infrastructure that extends to areas that, at the moment, are denied the opportunity that they deserve. We need one with people in it whose working life can give them security in old age, and one that has an energy mix that is competitive, sustainable and safe. We lack a Government who actually know something about business. We need a Government who appreciate that without wealth there can be no welfare, without prosperity there can be no attack on poverty, and without a thriving business community we risk decline.
	This was a do-nothing, hold-on-for-dear-life Budget. The Chancellor desperately hopes that he will be able to slip in under the wire to No. 10 before he is rumbled. However, the real cost of this Chancellor is hundreds of billions in higher taxes and annihilated pensions. In the years to come, we are all going to pay a heavy price for his stewardship of our economy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?

Alan Milburn: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	It is always a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), although his speech was somewhat less dispassionate than he had promised. He was obviously in Tiggerish mood, and somewhat less gracious than usual. I would have thought that any right hon. or hon. Member would recognise that to be able to deliver 10 Budgets in a row is a pretty remarkable achievement on the part of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. For those Budgets to have coincided with, and contributed to, our remarkably successful economic climate is without parallel in modern times. So perhaps the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), will offer a bit less criticism and a bit more credit to my right hon. Friend when he rises to speak later.
	The test of whether a modern Budget works consists of three things. First, we must determine whether it provides for sound economic management. Here, my right hon. Friend has again confounded the prophets of doom, including many Conservative Members, who seem to take perverse pleasure in predicting the imminent decline either of the British economy or of the public finances. I have heard much the same speech from the Conservative Front Bench over the past nine years. In the real world, however, I have yet to see any such decline. Who nowadays talks of mass unemployment, sky-high interest rates or out-of-control inflation?
	It is true that Britain faces many challenges in the future, and I will come to some of them in a moment. However, credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As the International Monetary Fund put it in December,
	"macro-economic stability in the UK remains remarkable."
	When the shadow Chancellor gets to his feet later today, I hope that he will have the good sense and good grace to concur with that judgment.
	Secondly, however, successful Budgets must look beyond today's achievements and face tomorrow's challenges. In the end, politics is about the future, not the past. Political parties that are wedded to the past tend to remain stuck in it, which is precisely why the Conservatives remain in opposition. Success goes to those who have the strongest claim on the future. Again, in that regard, this Budget has much to commend it—above all, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just said, its commitment to increased funding of education and science as recognition that our country's future competitiveness will rely increasingly on access to skills and technology.
	That brings me to the third test of success for any Budget—whether it works politically as well as economically. Here, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor laid down a dividing line in his Budget that caused the Conservative party—I notice that the shadow Chief Secretary has departed—some discomfort, to put it politely. The Conservatives' adoption of a third fiscal rule might have seemed a good wheeze when it was dreamt up, but the Budget has exposed it for what it is. Going into the next election promising cuts in public expenditure, particularly in education, will leave the Conservative party no further forward than it has been at the two previous elections.
	I speak with some feeling on that. My party had to learn the hard way during the 1980s that when one gets the fundamentals of tax and spend wrong, one pays a very high political price. Conservative Members might note that former President Clinton is in town today, and we all welcome him. The Conservative party would do well to heed the advice of President Clinton's famous election campaign slogan—it is the economy, stupid, not stupid economics, that wins elections.
	When Labour won office a decade ago, the key policy question that faced Britain was how to end the stop-go economic cycle and how to modernise public services. In both regards, although, of course, there is more to do, there is much progress to report. There are new questions today, however, which are different from the old ones. They boil down to this: how can we ensure that our response to globalisation, including increased competitive pressure from India and China, is characterised by the building of a genuinely inclusive society when there are huge pressures going in the opposite direction?
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry indicated in his speech, globalisation demands many policy responses from Government—fiscal discipline, economic stability, open markets not economic protectionism, a limit on regulation. It also requires investment in skills, technology and infrastructure. In the end, however, important though each of those policies are, the most important policy response is none of those—instead, it is the building of a society in which every citizen gets the chance to contribute and to progress. We now live in a highly competitive world, in which every talent wasted is not just a loss to the individual but a huge economic drag on the country. Britain can succeed economically only if we are mobile socially. Here, bluntly, we have no reason for complacency and much to concern us.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reported, it is true that life is steadily getting better for most people—living standards are rising. We all know, however, that in recent decades birth not worth has become more and more a key determinant of life chances in our country. Social mobility has slowed down when it ought to have been speeding up.

Stewart Jackson: I am listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's homily to the future. Can he explain how, after nine years of Labour Government, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. in our country is wider than it has ever been?

Alan Milburn: I will come to precisely that. The hon. Gentleman might have read, I think, the most authoritative study on inequality, mobility and poverty by Professor Hills of the London School of Economics. He says that it is likely that in the last two years for which figures are available, the widening of the inequality gap, which widened massively during the 1980s, has been halted. What we know for sure is that poverty has been reduced, particularly among children and pensioners. The truth is, however—we see it in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as much as in mine—that the gap remains stubbornly and persistently wide. While more people are better off, poverty has become more entrenched. There is a glass ceiling on opportunity in our country. We have raised it, but we have not yet broken through it.
	There are many welcome measures in the Budget that will help the position. Increasing the value of tax credits is one; yesterday's White Paper, with its focus on skills, is another. But as Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel prize for economics, has noted, social inequality is best tackled and mobility best advanced if we tackle the root causes, not the symptoms. That must mean moving beyond simply correcting low wages and family poverty after the event, towards policies that spread opportunity and help people to realise their own aspirations for progress.
	The biggest inequity today in our country is not between income groups, but between those who own shares, pensions and housing and those who rely purely on wages and benefits. That is why I believe, in common with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that the biggest contribution to enhancing social mobility is to establish Britain as an asset-owning democracy. After all, people rarely spend their way out of poverty. It is far better to encourage people to own assets, so that they have a real stake in the future. I therefore welcome the Budget announcement about the child trust fund. I also welcome the extension of home ownership: indeed, I want it to go further. Just as we are extending home ownership, we should seek to extend employee share ownership to give people a greater stake in economic success.
	My party won by becoming a party of aspiration. Our means of beating poverty should involve unleashing aspiration. That brings me to another area in which more reform is needed to combine the values that the Labour party, at least, has always supported—social justice and fairness for all—with the modern ambition that people rightly have to progress. I refer to the sensitive issue of taxation.
	The Chancellor told the House that he had had scope for tax cuts, but had chosen not to make them. He rightly announced, however, that he was uprating tax credits in line with earnings. In effect he was announcing a tax subsidy for working households, and I welcome that. Tax credits have made a real difference in raising living standards and incentivising people into work. Before their introduction, thousands of low-income families faced marginal tax rates in excess of 70 per cent. Some were even clobbered by rates of over 100 per cent. That meant that for every £1 earned in wages, more than £1 was taken off in tax.
	Today, over half a million fewer low-income households face such insanely high marginal tax rates than was the case in 1997. However, as the Red Book itself confirms, the number facing marginal tax rates of 60 per cent. or more has increased by nearly 1 million, largely as a consequence of the workings of the tax credit system. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that, without remedial action, that could worsen work incentives.
	I was brought up to believe that hard work and endeavour would be rewarded, not penalised. The tax system needs to reflect those values. On fairness grounds, it surely cannot be right for people towards the bottom of the income scale to face higher marginal taxes than those at the top. It is for that reason that I welcome the Chancellor's plan for a review of the feasibility of  aligning income tax and national insurance contributions for low-income families. I believe that the review should consider additional ways of making direct, targeted cuts in the tax burden on low-income families, building on our introduction of the 10p starting rate of tax in 1999, so that we can spring more people from the poverty trap. Such radical action is needed if we are to unfreeze social mobility in our country.
	Of course, there is much that this Labour Government have already done of which we can be proud. No Conservative Government would ever have introduced a national minimum wage, made universal child care a new arm of the welfare state, or helped millions of pensioners out of poverty. The Budget is a further step in the right direction, but we need to do more to help more people through that glass ceiling. An 80–20 society, in which 80 per cent. do OK but 20 per cent. are left behind, might be good enough for the Conservatives, but it should not be good enough for us. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to keep moving forward with reform. The longer that we are in government, the greater the need to keep on changing to keep pace with the times in which we live.

Vincent Cable: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who is a former Treasury Minister and therefore speaks with some authority on these subjects. I was disappointed that he said nothing about a subject that he knows even more about—the national health service, on which the Budget has been remarkably silent—and I want to put a specific question to the ministerial team.
	All hon. Members are worried about the implications of the NHS funding crisis, and I want to make a specific point to which the Minister may be able to reply by 10 o'clock. One of the Government's great achievements in health has been the roll-out of cancer screening—a major challenge to which there has been a huge response. The next step, which was to start in three days' time at the beginning of the financial year, was to begin a programme of bowel cancer screenings—something long awaited by people in the cancer campaigning world. Stories have been reported in the press and to me by a leading charity in the field that, at the very last moment, the programme has been pulled because of financial difficulties in the Department of Health. I wonder whether the Minister could set my mind at rest on that issue this evening.

Phil Willis: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, at a cancer briefing this morning, the Minister responsible announced that the bowel cancer programme would be rolled out from Rugby, where an existing programme has been in place for the past five years, yet not a single other roll-out place was named? Is that not highly cynical?

Vincent Cable: It is because, as my hon. Friend implies, the pilot schemes have been run already and have proved highly effective, but what had been promised was a universal scheme, which now seems to be in the process of being abandoned.
	I congratulate the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), on his emollient and consensual approach—at least, he started like that. He is someone who describes himself, like some of his colleagues, as a fellow liberal. I am not sure how far up the Back Benches that view is to be found, but it is a good start, and perhaps we saw a new style of debate today, which has been characterised by one wag as the debate between new Labour and blue Labour, although I do not know how the hon. Gentleman positions himself.
	The overall Budget debate has been somewhat frustrating, because we are essentially dealing with two different issues, one of which is the Government's overall economic performance and the other is the Budget, which has become a somewhat ritualised event. Most of the decisions have been made in the spending review and the pre-Budget report. The sum total of what is proposed amounts to 45 measures, costing £380 million. That is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of all Government spending—well within the margin of error of any Government forecast. We are talking about a series of changes—some of which are very welcome and sensible, such as the spending on schools and science—that have absolutely no impact whatever on the overall macro-economy.
	On the macro-economic picture, the view that I have taken ever since I took on my current role is to acknowledge the positives, and it is certainly still true that we have steady growth, low inflation, rising employment and fairly low unemployment, although unemployment has now risen for 12 of the past 13 months, which may be the beginning of an ominous trend. However, the Government tend to spoil their own very positive narrative with endless spin, hype and exaggeration. One little phrase always creeps into the Budget statement that reveals a lot: it is a lovely line about how they have the best period of steady growth, going back to 1700, or the Tudors—or the Normans, I am not sure. That nice line is true in one sense, but it is produced by a sleight of hand by using quarterly data.
	If we use annual data, we could argue that after 1949, for example, there were 25 years of steady growth. It is worth reflecting back on that period, because many of the strengths and weaknesses of the current long boom were apparent then. As some of us dimly remember from our childhood, it was a period of steady growth and rising living standards. Many of our parents were for the first time enjoying consumer durables bought on hire purchase. It was also a period of low unemployment, low inflation and general optimism; however, there was a fundamental problem that we see reproduced today.
	Back then, the structure of the economy and of demand was very unbalanced—it was led by consumption. Of course, in those days such imbalance appeared in the form of crises, because consumption spread over into imports and produced balance of payments crises. That no longer happens because of the liberalisation of capital markets; nevertheless, we have the same problem today. Consumption has grown by 3 to 3.4 per cent. a year since the mid-1990s, while the economy as a whole has grown by about 2.8 per cent. As a result, household savings ratios have fallen from 10 per cent. to less than 5 per cent., and the end product is a growing problem of personal debt. The Minister will have seen this morning's report from the Financial Services Authority—a very conservative regulatory body not given to hype or outrage—which points out that some 2 million families, over and above the 500,000 who have already defaulted on debt, are on the edge and in considerable difficulties in terms of managing domestic debt problems.
	Figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development a few weeks ago point out that the comfort that we derive from low interest rates is illusory. Because of low interest rates, people are borrowing very heavily, which means that principal repayments are growing much more than they did in earlier generations. People are also taking on credit card debt, which has to be serviced monthly. The OECD concluded that the share of household income being spent on debt servicing is approaching 20 per cent. The same was true in the early 1990s, when the last economic boom crashed disastrously under the previous Conservative Government. In many respects, the conditions today are very similar, and we can expect a painful correction in the years to come.
	The other parallel with that period is also very striking. Throughout the 1950s and certainly in the 1960s, as we moved into the Wilson era, politicians talked endlessly about productivity growth and science, because in comparative terms there was an underlying weakness in the UK economy. That weakness was very apparent, because Germany, Italy, France and Japan were recovering from the wartime period. It is less apparent now because the real breakthroughs are occurring in non-G7 countries, but the problems are still very real.
	As quite a few economic analysts have pointed out, in the past few years the British economy's productivity growth has fallen. A report published this morning by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows, for example, that Britain is now the seventh biggest recipient of inward foreign investment; last year, it was the fourth biggest. That is very strange and difficult to explain. Britain has a very open economy—unlike France, Italy and Spain, we have no problem with foreign acquisitions and mergers—yet foreign investors are very reluctant to come here. According to the EIU's analysis, a combination of very complex business taxation—incidentally, the corporation tax threshold was not raised this year, so more companies have been dragged into the higher rates—regulation and poor infrastructure is having a cumulatively damaging effect on the Chancellor's claim that he is overcoming problems of low productivity.
	On the Budget's specifics, one has to judge them on whether the Government are meeting their declared fiscal objectives in terms of the golden rule and the debt rule, and the Government themselves say that they are. Sadly, although the fiscal rules were a good idea and a very good way of restoring confidence in public finances, they have been discredited by the Government's marking their own exam papers in a favourable way. I acknowledge that the Government propose to take the big and positive step of introducing legislation to make the Office for National Statistics more independent, but there is another part to all this that is not happening. There should be a much greater degree of independence in the auditing of the Government's own accounts. An independent examination should be made of their assumptions and forecasts, and of whether they have actually met their rules. That would be a small step, but it would do an enormous amount for Government credibility so I cannot understand why they do not take it.
	Because the Government have not taken that step, many little details in the Red Book raise suspicions about what they are trying to do; for example, in 2007–08 and beyond there is no contingency fund in public spending. The contingency fund was extremely important for funding the Iraq war, but it now appears to have disappeared, which implies a highly optimistic approach to future budgeting. Perhaps the Chief Secretary can explain what has happened.
	There are some optimistic assumptions about the clampdown on tax avoidance. I am all in favour of tougher measures to clamp down on tax avoidance and I wish the Government well in their efforts, but they assume that they will achieve a 100 per cent. success rate and raise an extra £1 billion a year from those measures. Have the proposals been independently audited? Has anyone in the tax industry been able to confirm that the figures are meaningful and sensible?
	Items on the spending side need to be questioned, too. During his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that an additional £970 million would be spent on public housing through shared ownership schemes, which at the time I thought was positive and encouraging. However, although I and other people have searched through the Red Book, there is no reference to that sum anywhere. Shared ownership is difficult to operate, but it appears that the figure simply reflects commitments made last year and the year before, so it is not a new commitment at all. Can the Government confirm that?
	Various other spending items need some explanation. Perhaps the Chief Secretary can advance it. For example, it is stated there will be a 5 per cent. real cut in the spending of the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. I am all in favour of tightening up discipline in spending Departments, especially if they can reduce headquarters overheads—the principle is splendid. However, when Gershon reported just over a year ago, he argued that any cuts beyond 2 per cent. a year would be likely to result in a deterioration of service provision. How do the Government square that with their proposals?
	We already know from our constituents who are grappling with the problems of Jobcentre Plus that when they are put out of work it can take weeks to receive an answer to a call or to regularise their payments. There are already serious problems in the DWP. We know from National Audit Office reports that the Inland Revenue is falling short in its revenue collections by about £3 billion a year because it cannot get codings right. How taking out large swathes of capacity in that department will help is not clear. Where will the real savings of 5 per cent. come from?
	I have questions about the £30 billion that the Government plan to raise from privatisation, or asset sales. I have no problem with the principle, but the Government have already experienced considerable difficulty in realising maximum value for the public from asset sales. I closely followed the Qinetiq deal, where clumsy intervention by the Treasury, pushing the Ministry of Defence into selling the assets prematurely, resulted in the taxpayer receiving only a fraction of what should have been achieved by the sale. One has to be a bit sceptical about whether those sums will be realised.
	What guarantees will underpin asset sales? One of the biggest sales will be shares in British Energy. In principle, there is no reason why there should not be a private shareholding in the company, but if I were buying a share in British Energy I should want to know about its long-term business. The only way that can be secured is if the company is guaranteed an expanding new nuclear power programme. It is difficult to see how privatisation can proceed without the kind of guarantee about which the Government claim to have an open mind. There is clearly a link between the two.
	I have some specific questions about tax measures, one of which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and relates to the strange events surrounding the tax concession on work-based laptop computers. I quote to the Chief Secretary what his colleague the Chancellor said in 1999, when the measure was introduced. He said:
	"We hope this new measure will encourage businesses to loan computers to their employees and that it will be as successful as a similar scheme developed in Sweden, where household computer use increased dramatically as a result. There are real benefits to businesses, employees and the wider community."
	Well, why has the measure been pulled? As I understand it, it was pulled at about 24 hours' notice, following warnings from the Revenue about the difficulties. What has happened? Why was there no consultation?
	I have just had an angry e-mail from one of my constituents who runs a business in that sector. He writes:
	"As a business we have spent months working with other suppliers to set up processes, systems and contracts to help businesses finance this scheme. In fact we had just embarked on a scheme to provide finance for small to medium sized businesses so they would be able to let their employees take advantage of the scheme."
	That has been completely undermined by the lack of consultation and by peremptory announcements.
	Unfortunately, that follows a pattern. Last year, we had the self-invested personal pensions scheme. Partly as a result of warnings from Liberal Democrat Members, it was clear that the Government were opening the door to all kinds of problems related to giving tax relief on second homes and luxury holiday homes overseas. They had to retreat and did so in an embarrassing way, when people had already invested in the arrangements.

Helen Goodman: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, if there are concerns that tax reliefs are being abused and it is necessary to withdraw them because they are being used for avoidance purposes, it would be totally inappropriate to consult on those occasions.

Vincent Cable: Surely the obvious answer is that it is best to think those things through in advance.
	That is not the only example. The film subsidy tax relief scheme had exactly the same problem. Before that, there was company tax incorporation, which had to be reversed, and reversed back again. There is a fundamental lack of thought about the practicalities of many of the schemes, which is ultimately very wasteful.
	The main taxation measures that the Government introduced were in relation to the environment. The Liberal Democrats certainly support the principle of environmental taxation and would like to see more active use made of it. However, it was striking that on the day before the Budget, the Environmental Audit Committee, which is an all-party Committee, criticised the Government for allowing environmental taxation to fall as a share of gross domestic product. That is at a time when, as we were reminded this morning, carbon emissions targets are not being met.
	Of the specific measures, we support the very modest increase in the taxation of what are called Chelsea tractors. Frankly, the research of the RAC, for example, suggests that, in order to have an impact and to change behaviour, the differential needs to be about £1,000 rather than £200. None the less, the measure is a move in the right direction. We welcome, in principle, the increase in the climate change levy. It is a clumsy tax, based simply on the manufacturing sector. We have argued for a more broadly based carbon taxation system, but since we support the principle of environmental taxation, we do not disagree with what the Government are trying to do.
	Given that the Government claim to be really using environmental taxation, I am perplexed about why there is nothing whatever in the Budget on the aviation sector. Interestingly, air passenger duty, which is the one tax mechanism that the Government have, has been frozen. Why is that? There are many ways in which the Government could do something, through environmental taxation, to curb emissions in the aviation sector, but they have done absolutely nothing. The question is, why?
	The major weakness of the Budget relates to the big opportunities that were missed. One question—this is a slightly technical point that I raised with the Chancellor in Treasury questions—is why the Chancellor missed the opportunity of the lowest real interest rates for 300 years to refinance large parts of the Government debt. The Government have rolled out a programme—they describe it in the Budget—for more active use of the gilts markets, but reputable economic advisers and former members of the Monetary Policy Committee have pointed out that billions could have been saved if the Treasury had been quicker off the mark in taking advantage of the market opportunities.
	A more fundamental point is that there is absolutely no indication of where the Government are heading in terms of the long-term reform of local government finance. That is important because, as we all know, council tax is highly regressive. That completely undermines the basic objective that the Chancellor is trying to achieve: greater fairness and equity throughout the tax system. There is a lot of anger among pensioners about the loss of the £200 rebate, but that, in itself, is a symptom of a bigger problem. The tax is not perceived as fair or legitimate, and it needs to be reformed so that it is linked to people's ability to pay. Moreover, the local government tax system produces only 25 per cent. of local revenue, which is not consistent with the approach of local decentralisation of which the Government claim to be in favour. We have had no indication of where the Government are heading.
	The Chancellor also missed the big opportunity of giving us an indication of where the Government are heading on pensions policy. There was a report in the Financial Times on the day before the Budget of a blazing row about the matter that was supposed to have taken place between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I do not believe everything that I read in newspapers, but the article seemed singularly plausible because it argued that the Prime Minister had asked the Chancellor what he was doing about the Turner report. The Turner report's key recommendation was on how to create a system with a decent level of state pension to get away from mass means-testing, which has all the disincentive effects at which the right hon. Member for Darlington hinted. Turner offered a way forward, but we know that the Chancellor is passionately opposed to it. There is a fundamental division in the Government on not just pensions policy, but the fundamental question of the best way of dealing with poverty and redistribution. There is a question whether we should use complex benefits, or general measures such as those proposed by Turner on pensions.
	I do not doubt the Chancellor's commitment to social justice because he clearly believes in it passionately. However, he has created a highly complex system of benefits that causes big disincentives. At the end of the day, the system has proved to be wholly ineffective because all the evidence about income and wealth distribution suggests that that problem is getting worse and certainly no better.

Tom Clarke: Since 1997, the Government's objective has been to build a strong economy and a fairer society with opportunity and security for all. That has been the backdrop of every single Budget that the Chancellor has delivered, including last Wednesday's. I have heard all of them, and before the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) leaves the Chamber, may I also say that I heard a number of Conservative Budgets before them? The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there is little difference in the mind of the public, but that is not the perception of my constituents. They recall this Chancellor's contribution and contrast that with Black Wednesday, which, the Treasury estimated, cost £3.3 billion. The then Chancellor, Norman Lamont, raised interest rates during the day from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. and then to 15 per cent. and authorised the spending of billions in an effort to keep the pound in the range allowed by the exchange rate mechanism. I am not complaining about the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton leaving the Chamber; I am sure that he will read my speech as carefully as I listened to his.
	I want to be positive today and highlight the benefits to the economy and my constituents of the past nine years and the measures in the Budget. Inflation is set to remain low and stable. We are entering the 10th year of real growth under this Government, who are the only Government in British history to be on course to maintain 10 consecutive years of uninterrupted economic growth.
	The economy has generated 2.3 million additional jobs since 1997. Britain has 75 per cent. of adults in work—a higher rate than those in America and the euro area. There are 170,000 more people in work than a year ago. In Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill the number of people out of work is 1,738, and 38,100 people are inwork. What a remarkable transformation of employment opportunities! We could only dream of such figures during the years of the Conservative Government. However, even unemployment statistics can mask the personal misery endured by families torn apart and left with no dignity or future, as we saw when unemployment continued in an upward spiral and grew substantially in the '80s. Unemployment has been tackled most successfully, and the Government are now addressing the issue of incapacity benefit claimants.
	My constituency is ranked No. 10 in the list of those claiming the most incapacity benefit. The top locations include Lanarkshire and Liverpool, and six of them stretch across south Wales. That should come as no surprise, because those were the heartlands of heavy industry, employing miners, steelworkers, shipbuilders and foundry workers—all doing heavy, dirty and often dangerous employment. In the case of the mineworkers, the Government have almost completed the largest personal injury compensation scheme in the world, yielding £1.8 billion for respiratory disease and £1.2 billion for vibration white finger.
	However, the Department for Work and Pensions pathways to work project needs to be sensitive to that historical background and the enormous contribution that many workers from those communities have made to the wealth-creating industries. On Monday 10 October 2005, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions published the Department's principles of welfare reform, which contain the values and principles that shape the Government's vision of the future welfare state. There can be no quarrel with that considered approach, provided that the principles are maintained and advisers treat incapacity benefit claimants with respect and dignity. It is also crucial to provide skills. A high-skill economy will help to deliver faster productivity and growth and ensure that the UK is well placed to prosper in the global economy. That is our response to globalisation.
	The national minimum wage is an important cornerstone of Government strategy, aimed at providing employees with decent minimum standards and fairness in the workplace. Decency and dignity for all employees has replaced the old Dutch auction of employers competing against each other on the basis of who can pay the least to the fewest, which has no place in a fairer, modern Britain. The wealth we were promised in those days never did trickle down, but now we have the Low Pay Commission recommendations in place for the adult rate of the national minimum wage to rise to £5.35p from October 2006. I welcome that.
	On health, the NHS budget has doubled since 1997, and will have almost trebled by 2008. The Red Book refers to admirable progress in accident and emergency units. Governments have their responsibilities; so do health authorities. Monklands accident and emergency unit, which serves my constituents, is earmarked for closure. I wholeheartedly support the retention of that vital health service facility. I congratulate my local newspaper, the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, on its outstanding role in promoting the retention of that unit. Praise is also due to the Kirkintilloch Herald, which has established a reputation second to none for campaigning on health issues. None the less, they also recognise the unprecedented investment in health made by the Chancellor.
	The pretentious fury about the Chancellor's speech exhibited by the Conservative Front Bench team was about playing the man, not the ball. The Chancellor's consistent support of the national health service simply proves that actions speak louder than words. The administrators responsible for the provision of our health service have a difficult job—but heavens, how much more money do they want to provide the range of services that we need? The Chancellor has responded, so it is their responsibility to act. [Interruption.] I told the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that he would enjoy what I said, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), too, will only have the pleasure of reading my speech.
	Trusts should be able to live within their budget allocation and they should accept that priorities are just as important to patients as they are to consultants.

Martin Horwood: Our primary care trust keeps within its budget. It is a three-star PCT that has balanced the books and broken even in recent years. Why, therefore, have closures of ward and hospitals, as well as the rationalisation of everything from mental health services to obstetrics been announced in Gloucestershire today?

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman might be able to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, if he will forgive me, I have only a short time available so I shall concentrate on my own constituency.
	Home owners have benefited from low and stable interest rates, with a current rate of 4.5 per cent. The jewel in the crown of economic success is the lowest mortgage rates since the 1950s, cutting mortgage costs for the average mortgage payer by about £4,000 a year. Scotland's housing market is set for another boom year, with prices rising at twice the rate for the UK as a whole according to Halifax Bank of Scotland, Britain's biggest mortgage lender. Even so, Martin Ellis, chief economist at the Bank of Scotland, has pointed out:
	"Scotland remains the most affordable part of the UK."
	Coatbridge in my constituency recorded the biggest house price increase in the UK during 2005, with an average rise of 36 per cent.. That is tangible evidence of prosperity across the UK, and not only for the wealthy.

Andrew Love: On home ownership, my right hon. Friend will know that until a year or so ago, the number of people who owned their own property had increased by 1 million. That figure appears to have increased again to 1.5 million, so can we now call Labour the party of the home owner?

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is right—the party has truly produced a property-owning democracy.
	The Chancellor dealt with overseas aid, and it was significant that the Leader of the Opposition did not think that it was worth dealing with the subject at any length. I welcome what the Chancellor said and did. The House will be aware that the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill, which I introduced, is a small contribution to reducing third-world poverty. More specifically, Parliament and the House must become much more proactive, better informed and far more focused on the huge resources and practical strategies needed to tackle those problems.
	I consulted both the Treasury and the Department for International Development, and I record my sincere gratitude to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. My approach is founded on the belief that we have obligations to one other beyond our front door and garden gate, and we have responsibilities beyond our national borders. If Governments, business, non-governmental organisations and faith groups work together, this generation, with its energy, technology and global reach, does indeed have it within its power, if it so chooses, finally to free the world from poverty, disease, illiteracy and want. I believe that the Budget contributes substantially to that end.

Kenneth Clarke: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I have not missed many Budgets, if any, since I entered the House, and I have never heard a Budget that had less content than the Budget that was delivered last week. It has already vanished from the newspapers, it contained very few measures, and it did not seem to attract the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much. He is plainly bored by the job that he holds, which he has held for a long time. He is impatient, we all know, to go to another.
	The Chancellor can be a considerable and effective parliamentary debater, but I have never heard him put less effort into delivering a speech, so he gave a very boring speech. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) remarked, searching through it for what we used to regard as Budget measures produces a thin harvest. The Chancellor could not afford to do anything in the Budget, and did not particularly wish to do anything, so there was very little in it.
	I am one of those who believe that we need an annual Budget. It is a strange performance that we go through, but the House debates economic policy so infrequently on the Floor that it is valuable to have a five-day annual debate. I do not want to go back to Budget speeches that used to be long, impenetrable, detailed expositions of fiscal and monetary measures, macro-economic indicators and the outlook for the economy, but we need more fact than the political presentation that we get from the Chancellor, and from his colleagues in subsequent days.
	It would be nice to have a statement of fiscal policy, a description of all the fiscal measures being introduced that day, including the ones in the press releases, and a more dispassionate outlook as to where the economy is going. Because many of the financial commentators in the newspapers just take the Treasury briefing, if we have a Budget of the kind delivered by the Chancellor last week, we often have a debate about economic policy in the United Kingdom that is not based on a sound factual footing.
	I shall try to fill the gap. I have spent a few days trying to work out where we are and what the Chancellor is doing. He deliberately took content out of the Budget by moving the difficult things out. Let me begin with fiscal policy. The Chancellor is raising taxation rapidly and increasing the tax burden, which is going up to levels that we have not seen since the 1980s. He is preparing to restrain spending growth drastically; he just did not want to say so in his Budget statement.
	The Chancellor got rid of the specific tax measures in the pre-Budget November statement. He got over the humiliation of finally admitting that his growth forecasts were all wrong, but more importantly, he imposed yet more tax burdens on the oil industry, which will raise £2 billion in a full year, and he floated the idea of a development land tax, about which we will no doubt hear more in due course.
	In the Budget, the Chancellor has relied on his old weapon of fiscal drag—not raising the thresholds for each level of tax in line with inflation, so as to produce more and more income. That leaves all our constituents baffled about why they feel they are paying more tax, although the Chancellor has not announced any increase in taxation. All Chancellors use it; the present Chancellor uses it every year, and he is using it heavily. The Red Book forecasts that by 2010, compared with the present, another 1 per cent. of national gross domestic product will be taken by income tax and national insurance.
	As has already been pointed out, corporation tax thresholds have not been raised at all—not in line with inflation, not at all—so corporation tax take increases as well. The Chancellor is raising his revenue rapidly. He needs to; I shall return to that. He has put off—I do not regret it—the comprehensive spending review a little. I do not know why. It will be completed by mid-2007. He gave us hints of the beginning of that with what has already been described for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. Their baseline will be taken down by 5 per cent. per annum in real terms, compared with their baseline for 2007–08. I imagine that the Ministers responsible will think of nothing else, because we have been given no idea how it will be achieved.
	The Chancellor forecasts that public spending as a whole will increase by 1.9 per cent. each year between 2008 and 2010, which is less than half the level of recent growth and less than the likely growth rate of the economy. We have no idea where those cuts will be made, and we have no idea how the public services will cope when some of them are in crisis even following the ridiculous largesse since 2000. Unless reform is initiated, this will be a tight public spending round.

Des Browne: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: The Chief Secretary must deliver the public spending round—I have worked with some tough Chief Secretaries, and I hope that he has got the knuckledusters ready.

Des Browne: Like most hon. Members, I have enormous respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, I do not want him to continue to labour under the misapprehension that the comprehensive spending review 2007 was a Budget announcement. I am sure that he knows that I made a statement to this House in July setting out the fact that there will be a comprehensive spending review rather than a normal spending review. Indeed, I set out all the work streams, some of which are now reporting.

Kenneth Clarke: I realise that spending is not usually a matter for the Budget, although I used to include it. However, when one considers fiscal policy, spending is still relevant to the debate. The Government are raising tax and are about to cut spending growth drastically—they argued that we were being draconian when we urged such measures in the past. There are no longer any fiscal rules by which to judge the matter. The golden rule has been discredited since the ridiculous change to the timetable for the cycle. The sustainable investment rule would be sensible, if the accounting devices for Network Rail, unfunded pension commitments and the private finance initiative made any sense. The Chancellor is flying by the seat of his pants on fiscal rules. In its annual country report, the International Monetary Fund recommends that he should start putting in some fresh fiscal rules to correct those discrepancies.
	Although the Budget does not contain a Budget judgment, we should know what it is. Chancellors usually loosen policy, tighten policy, try to redress the public finances or feel that they can be expansive. This Chancellor is tightening policy, and he has only just started. He must do so because of many factors that we warned him about, given his years of irresponsibility since 2000.
	The real economy is in the doldrums at the moment. Let us not start the fancy swapping of statistics, which involves real-terms figures, cash figures and choosing particular funny years. Everybody knows that the economy is going through a period of marked slowdown, because the 1.8 per cent. gross domestic product growth in 2005 was the lowest since 1992. Why is GDP growth slowing down? It has been based—I refer hon. Members to my previous Budget speeches—on a sea of household debt, and public debt and borrowing, for the past six years. That was not sustainable, and what is not sustainable always stops, which is why GDP growth has started to slow down. There has been a drop in consumer demand and a drop in public investment and spending. Those trends will continue, and will not pick up rapidly.
	Last year consumer demand grew by 1.9 per cent.—the lowest growth since 1995. It will not pick up, and I shall briefly explain why. First, household debt is about 150 per cent. of household incomes. People will not add much to absolute debt, so they are not going to spend above their incomes any more. The disposable income of the average household in this country has gone up by only 1 per cent. in each of the past two years. Furthermore, I have referred to the tax burden, and the Governor of the Bank of England mentioned it when he discussed falling demand.
	We have rising unemployment—there has been a slight hiccup in unemployment, which has been a good field hitherto—and last month's increase in the claimant count was the biggest since 1992. I am most struck by the fact that next year the percentage of the working age population in employment in this country will be lower than that in the German Democratic Republic. People are more insecure about their jobs than they used to be.
	The pensions crisis is making people worried, which will cause the savings ratio to increase, and consumer demand will not come back. When one examines the Chancellor's proposals and considers what the Chief Secretary must do in the public spending round, it is clear that public investment is not going to carry on providing all the growth in the economy in future years.
	The economy is slowing down markedly and I cannot see any reason why it should bounce back in a hurry. I think that we could be in for several years of lacklustre performance, and I think that we have got there because the Government took too short-term a view and disregarded the warnings when the Chancellor went in for tax and spend. Since 2000, the Chancellor has made the economy ever more dependent on shoving in demand, either by encouraging consumers to borrow too heavily or having the Government spend too highly. Now, the economy will slow down. I have not even touched on global influences such as oil prices and commodity prices, which still have not had their full effect on our growth potential. There will be no quick bounce back.
	I have described where I think that we are, so what are my conclusions? The Chancellor has done nothing of significance in the Budget, except to announce small measures and drift on in the manner that he has already proposed. I would like us to seek to achieve so much more. What economic policy now lacks is ambition. It has become fashionable to talk about the challenge from India and China, and one can add to that Brazil and theentirety of south-east Asia. Globalisation is transforming the world in which we are competing, and the pace of technological change has never been faster, so we must be much more competitive than we ever were.
	To make our economic growth sustainable, we need to rebalance it. We will need some years in which growth is led not by consumer demand and public spending, but by investment, trade and productivity, and we must do things to encourage that.

Andrew Love: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing business investment, which is one way to rebalance the economy. The conditions for business investment could not be better, because the stock exchange is going up and interest rates are low, yet business investment is not happening. In the Budget judgment, the Chancellor suggests that business investment will increase in the next couple of years, but although all the conditions are right, how can we be sure that that will happen?

Kenneth Clarke: The Chancellor says that every year, but the record, as the hon. Gentleman has conceded, is dreadful. Business investment in the fourth quarter of last year was 9.1 per cent. of GDP—the lowest figure recorded in this country since records began in 1965. Our business investment record is very poor, and, as hon. Members have said, people are being deterred from investing in this country by high levels of complicated corporate taxation, by rising levels of regulation and by falling or dull demand in this country. We must address why this country is not producing the necessary level of business investment.
	Productivity is another area in which our performance has been dreadful.

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: If I give way again, I will have no more injury time.
	Ever since he was shadow Chancellor, this Chancellor has stressed the need to improve our productivity level, but he has a dreadful record on it. The Red Book includes an extraordinary set of international comparisons, which the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who tried to intervene a moment ago, has unwisely used. I refer him to a very good article in last week's Financial Times. The presentation in the Red Book of our productivity record compared with that of the Americans, the Germans and the French is completely bogus, because our record is dreadful. The Red Book uses output per employee, but output per hour is the best measure. Our performance is extremely poor, and it remains miles behind that of the French, the Americans and the Germans, so it is not true that we are closing the gap. Output per hour in this country increased by zero in the year to the third quarter of 2005.

Edward Miliband: One year.

Kenneth Clarke: One year—of course! The Red Book uses funny time scales and considers output per man. On all  measures of productivity, this country is underperforming.

Edward Miliband: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I am not going to give way.
	Productivity in the public sector has been dropping like a stone as huge sums of money have gone into increased payrolls, huge pay rises, reduced work loads and reduced performance in service after service.
	We must consider innovation, because our research and development record is extremely poor. As a proportion of GDP, research and development spending in this country is now down by 3 per cent. compared with 1997, when this Government took over, and the burden of taxation and regulation is constantly referred to.
	In policy terms, the Chancellor is contributing nothing to that long-term challenge. He is burned out in his current job, and I just wish his successor luck in trying to do something to put some life into his lacklustre legacy.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's time is up.

Kerry McCarthy: It is slightly daunting to follow a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Budget debate. I spent the morning at the Treasury Committee taking evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England. I must say that the Governor's analysis of the current economic outlook bears very little relationship to the scenario just presented by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
	I welcome the Budget's focus on the economic performance of cities as a driver of regional economic growth, especially the importance placed by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on science and the creative industries, which are certainly key to the economic prosperity of Bristol and the surrounding city region. Bristol has been designated one of the first six science cities in the UK and the universities are leading the field in several areas of scientific research. The city is also host to many creative entrepreneurs, especially Aardman Productions, which has just brought back its fourth Oscar from Hollywood.
	I wish to talk today about the need to raise levels of enterprise and investment in our most deprived areas if we are to raise overall levels of enterprise and productivity. We know that significant amounts of regeneration funding have gone into those areas, but that alone—welcome though it is—will not deliver fundamental and lasting change: creating thriving and successful business sectors in those communities will.
	The Government have introduced a range of initiatives over the years, including enterprise areas, business improvement districts, new entrepreneur scholarships, the Phoenix fund and the business incubation fund. I could go on. I was pleased to see continued support in the Budget for measures such as the local enterprise growth initiative. So far, £126 million has gone into deprived areas and a second bidding round will start soon. I hope that one day my constituency will benefit from that.
	Government support is not, in itself, enough. We need a long-term transformation in the business environment in poorer communities, and to achieve that the private sector has to play a part. The Budget included a very useful paper entitled "Financial services in London", which I read with great interest. It rightly focused on the City's internationalism—it was sub-titled "Global opportunities and challenges"—which is, after all, the reason for its past pre-eminence and its continued success and prosperity. However, we also need to look at whether UK financial institutions could do more to help regeneration in our poorest areas.
	When the Treasury Committee went to the USA recently—a country with higher productivity than the UK and a much stronger enterprise culture—we visited City First bank in Washington DC, which is a community development financial institution, or CDFI, that serves a community that is 87 per cent. black and 9 per cent. Hispanic. The bank is playing a key role at the heart of its community in cultivating a crop of new entrepreneurs and business that are rooted in their communities, bringing new wealth into them.
	The bank's clients also include many customers in the not-for-profit sector, who were not well served by major banks, including day-care centres, homeless shelters, sheltered housing operators, churches and charter schools. Those depositors know that by putting their reserves into City First, at a competitive rate, they are also having a positive impact on the local community. The team at City First act not just as bankers, but as business advisers, working with clients on, for example, drawing up cash-flow projections. They nurture their clients, through good times and bad, and they can do so because they are part-funded by mainstream banks. The mainstream banks benefit from the new markets tax credit, and also meet their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act—I shall return to that later.
	There are, of course, significant differences between the UK and the US banking systems, but we can learn lessons from the US. A vibrant CDFI sector in the UK could help to fill the funding gap that is left by a lack of access to mainstream finance and could act as a bridge between deprived communities and the more successful mainstream economies. It could also improve the sustainability of regeneration funding through increased loan financing, as compared to grant funding.
	There has already been some analysis of the need for such organisations in the UK. Bristol city council commissioned some research in 2002 that looked at the support available for local business start-ups. In particular, it looked at Barton Hill, an estate in my constituency that is in a ward ranked 133rd on the national index of deprivation. The estate benefits already from £50 million regeneration funding under the new deal for communities scheme, but that alone is not enough to turn round its fortunes.
	The study found that there was no lack of agencies providing enterprise support in Bristol. In fact, there was an over-provision of agencies and an under-utilisation of funds. In some cases, the resources were overlapping, or poorly targeted, or the agencies did not fully understand or meet the needs of micro-entrepreneurs. I very much welcome the decision, highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today, to cut the number of business support services from 3,000 to 100 by 2010. Streamlining the support will make accessing it much easier for small businesses.
	The Bristol study noted that there was a raft of community finance initiatives, such as a loan guarantee scheme provided in partnership with a mainstream financial institution. But application processes were complex, and they had not been drawn together or developed in the context of an integrated strategy. The study also found that barriers to personal finance, such as the lack of a bank account or the absence of any savings or assets, were also significant barriers to entrepreneurship. We know, however, that mainstream financial institutions are increasingly deserting such communities, to the extent that they no longer even provide cashpoint machines, let alone set up branches.
	The Bristol study recommended the creation of a broad-based CDFI, which would bring together existing loan funds; encourage closer partnerships with, and between, credit unions; link in advice services, such as the excellent Bristol debt advice centre in my constituency; and bridge the gap between access to personal banking facilities and enterprise finance. A CDFI in Bristol could also, as in the United States, have a role to play in supporting voluntary sector and not-for-profit groups, of which there are many in my constituency, doing immensely valuable work. They all too often struggle to access funding, can secure only short-term funds, or are hit by cash flow problems as they get caught out by the complexities of endless bidding rounds. A community bank could help them negotiate their way through the maze, by providing loan finance, cash-flowing shortfalls and offering business advice and support.
	The Government have already taken some important steps to promote the development of CDFIs in the UK. They have established a trade association for CDFIs—the Community Development Finance Association—and the Bridges community development venture fund has invested £20 million in our most deprived areas. Most importantly, the Government have introduced the community investment tax credit, which gives a tax incentive to investors in accredited CDFIs, and requires them to make onward investments. So far, that has enabled CDFIs to raise some £35 million of new capital for onward lending to small businesses and social enterprises in disadvantaged communities. CDFIs have financed more than 9,500 businesses and individuals, sustained more than 85,000 jobs, created more than 10,000 jobs and leveraged another £160 million in additional funds, on top of the £400 million they already have available to lend and invest.
	That represents real progress, but there is still a long way to go before the sector is as vibrant and as much a part of the local economy as it is in the USA. There are three possible ways to encourage our financial institutions to do more to lend and invest in disadvantaged areas, and to support the development of CDFIs. The first is to offer a reward or incentive for investment, through measures like the community investment tax credit, which the Government have already done. The second, which was recommended by the social investment task force in 2000 but has not yet been implemented, is to force disclosure by the banks of the extent of their investment in, and provision of services to, disadvantaged communities. Only one bank, Barclays, does that voluntarily, and I suggest that the time has come to encourage—or perhaps do more than encourage—other banks to follow suit. The third and more radical approach would be to adopt the US approach and legislate to require banks to invest in deprived communities. In the USA, under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, deposit-taking financial institutions can choose whether to provide banking services directly to under-served communities, or to invest in CDFIs that do, but they have to do one or the other. That activity is monitored by federal regulators, and taken into account when banks are applying for charters, or for approval of bank mergers, acquisitions and branch openings. At the last audit, only 5 per cent. of banks were judged to have failed to comply with their obligations under the CRA, which has led to a huge growth in the CDFI industry and greatly increased access to capital for low-income communities. The bank that we visited in Washington said that without that legislation they would not exist, and neither would the businesses set up for their customers.
	I spoke earlier of the company based in the Barton Hill area of my constituency that has just returned from the Oscars. Who knows what other talent is out there that, if cultivated, nurtured and supported, and if given half a chance and helped by financial institutions, would go on to similar success?
	In conclusion, I very much welcome the measures proposed by the Chancellor in his Budget, particularly the focus on support for enterprise investment, and I hope that we can build on those measures for years to come.

Edward Leigh: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) will forgive me if I do not follow her remarks, which I am sure were of a very high quality.
	I want to deal with a matter that is at the heart of the work that I do in Parliament—efficiency savings. As the parties move closer and closer together ideologically, the debate will increasingly centre on which party can achieve such efficiency savings. The Chancellor claims that through the Gershon review he can save £21 billion. I support that target, which approaches 5 per cent. of Government spending—a worthy aim.
	However, there are various problems, the first of which concerns baselines. In our ordinary life, if we are given a utility bill, compare it with last year's and see that we have saved £20 having spent £200, it is clear that we have made a 10 per cent. saving. Unbelievably, in most Government Departments that clear baseline on individual projects is not available. For instance, the National Audit Office found that out of 300 projects that it looked into under the review, 180 had no baseline. How can one make accurate claims if one does not know one's starting point? That is surely the first essential in any walk of life. The situation is not surprising, because although it has been a requirement on local government to have a professionally qualified finance director since 1988, there is no such requirement on Whitehall Departments. As far as I know, no permanent secretary has ever run a project, although they are highly intelligent people.
	In the 2005 Budget, the Chancellor claimed that he had already achieved £2 billion-worth of efficiency savings. If one looks in the detail of the Budget report, though, one finds that only £1.2 billion of efficiency savings is listed. So where has the rest gone? The devil is in the detail. To this day, there is still no full NAO access to the Office of Government Commerce breakdown of the £2 billion claim. The NAO has therefore had to conclude that Departments are not sufficiently subject to OGC challenge. The first problem, therefore, is that we do not know the baseline—the starting point—for these efficiency savings.
	The second big problem is that of double counting. The vast majority of efficiency savings, which are now the bedrock of successive Budgets, were already under way before the efficiency programme began. In the NAO sample of 20 projects, 17 were initiated before publication of the Gershon review in July 2004. Many efficiency savings are simply added on to existing programmes rather than being new programmes.
	The third problem sounds quite technical but is very significant—it is the inclusion of non-cash-releasing schemes. Perhaps the former Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), will understand what I am talking about, but I will try to explain. The £21 billion saving includes non-cashable elements. That is where I would claim, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I am putting the same inputs into a particular programme—it may be number of cancer operations—but getting significantly enhanced outputs. That is a non-cashable release. The position is much less clear than with cashable releases. The Gershon review claims that two thirds of the £21 billion saved is based on cashable savings, but the pre-Budget report shows that in fact the figure is only 48 per cent.—so where has the rest gone?
	I bring those three problems to the House to try to get a more rigorous discussion of what is now a central element of the Budget debate. Let me turn to why they occur. Unbelievably, the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions have been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General for 16 successive years. An army of 115,000 staff is employed by that one Department, most of whom are not delivering money to the poor but working out entitlements. We are buried in a system that is increasingly based on means-testing, complexity and bureaucracy, and riddled by fraud and error. We now see that the Inland Revenue, which has been the most successful and efficient Government department, is being sucked into this vortex. Previously, it very efficiently took money from the middle classes. It is not expert at delivering money back to poorer people, and its reputation has suffered from it.
	The Comptroller and Auditor General already audits Budget assumptions. I propose a much clearer audit trail throughout its forecasts and claims, all of which should be independently validated. I say this to my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, although perhaps it is too radical a suggestion: why should not the Opposition parties, when they initiate the equivalent of the James review, offer to have their forecasts and proposed efficiency savings audited by the National Audit Office so that we can have an honest debate? I think that that is an interesting idea—I dreamed it up in my bath last night—and I will suggest it to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) suggested in his excellent speech, we increasingly have to replace complex, means-tested benefits and tax credits with raising tax thresholds. That is the key, because it can be argued for by compassionate Conservatives who are worried about the fact that as people on lower incomes increase their income, they are paying marginal rates of 60 per cent. tax—far higher than the rich. At the same time, middle class people will work out that as tax thresholds are raised their tax will start to go down. It is a canny thing to do politically—after all, we are politicians—as well as being the right thing to do for the economy and for the poor.

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend recognise the huge cost inefficiencies in laundering taxpayers' money back to them? Would not it be simpler if we just raised the tax thresholds at which people start paying tax, and would not that help a huge number of the least-well-off families in our society?

Edward Leigh: I entirely agree with that sensible proposition, which I hope the Minister has noted.

Helen Goodman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: Of course I give way to my fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee—a very effective member and former teenage scribbler in the Treasury, according to Mr. Lawson.

Helen Goodman: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he was paying attention to the Budget speech last week when the Chancellor said:
	"One option would be to raise that personal tax allowance further. But spending £500 million on a family tax cut in this way would give a two-child family on median earnings . . . £22 a year more, or 40p a week. However, using the same resources to raise the child tax credit will give that same family a tax cut worth £140 a year more, over six times as much".—[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 295.]
	Can the hon. Gentleman explain how his proposal would be in line with compassionate Conservatism?

Edward Leigh: I just tried to explain it. We can argue back and forth about statistics, but I shall not do that. I simply make the perfectly good point that, in every Budget, tax thresholds should relate to the real world where there is growth and inflation. In a fair Budget, tax thresholds should do that, leaving aside the debate on tax credits.
	If we are to have an honest debate and achieve the £21 billion of savings, which is achievable—after all, the private sector regularly makes 5 per cent. efficiency savings—on what could we spend the money? The number of people who pay inheritance tax is rising rapidly. This year, 37,000 people were paying it, whereas in 1996–97, the figure was15,000. The amount paid has doubled since 1997, from £1.6 billion to £2.9 billion. If one is spending £550 billion, one can address that tax. I hope that my hon. Friends on the shadow Treasury Bench will view the matter as a priority. It has a massive impact on behaviour and is not good for the way in which families plan inheritance. It often causes disputes, it raises only £2.9 billion and it should be a priority for a future Government.
	We could increase efficiency in so many ways. For example, the Chancellor makes a great song and dance about spending £7.5 billion or more on the skills learning sector. The private sector already spends £20 billion because it reckons that too much public sector investment is academically based and not based on what is useful to business.
	A sea change in public opinion may be occurring. New Labour's success was its realisation that it needed to marry its belief in social justice with economic efficiency. That was the headline claim. However, buried in that message was a clear realisation that, however compassionate one wants to be, one cannot win elections in this country if one hammers middle class people. I am afraid that, increasingly, middle class people, who are faced with the largest tax burden ever, are beginning to wake up to the fact that they are being hammered. The inheritance tax that I mentioned increasingly bites into ordinary middle class homes.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I am afraid that I cannot because I have had my two strikes. It is a ridiculous way to run such debates but I cannot give way now.
	Middle class families pay a ridiculous amount for care homes. The amount of public money spent in Scotland is far more generous. We subsidise that. The average cost of a care home for an elderly relative is approximately £800 a week. People are forced to sell their homes to pay for that and we should examine the matter because it increasingly causes resentment, especially when people realise that there are more generous arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is, therefore, a sea change in public opinion.
	I welcome aspects of the Education and Inspections Bill and some parts of the Prime Minister's objectives as he shepherds a reluctant party into the 21st century, because the only way forward should be based on choice and competition. One cannot achieve one's aims simply by setting new targets and more central direction. In 1999, there were 24,000 managers in the NHS. In 2004, there were 37,000—an increase of 55 per cent. We have reached the limit of what we can achieve through central targeting and Government diktat. In health, funding, directed by the GP, should follow the patient into any hospital in the private and public sector. In education, funding should follow the pupil into any school in the public and private sector. That is my personal view and not yet the view of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench but I seek to persuade them and I will not waver from that.
	In the next 12 months, as my party conducts its policy review, it must provide a careful and rigorous explanation of how it will achieve efficiency savings. It must identify one or two matters, such as inheritance tax, about which there are obvious anomalies. It must base its approach on what the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) described as an asset-owning democracy. He has left his place, but that aspect of his speech was wonderful. Why do we believe in an asset-owning and property-owning democracy—the great crusade of the 1950s—if we do not apply that to health, education and pensions? The challenge that faces my party is devising realistic policies to achieve that asset-owning democracy.

Edward Miliband: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who had interesting advice for the Labour party and Conservative Front Benchers. I am not sure whether we or the shadow Chancellor enjoyed it more.

David Taylor: I am keen to make the point that I would have made if the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) had given way to me. Did my hon. Friend detect some contradiction between two closely linked remarks? The hon. Gentleman said that inheritance tax raised a small or tiny amount of money but also described it as a swingeing imposition on the middle class. It cannot be both.

Edward Miliband: I agree with my hon. Friend about the contradiction and thank him for the extra time.
	It is a privilege to speak in the Budget debate. I watched many Budget debates before I became a Member of Parliament, and it is a privilege to speak in the same debate as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor. I may not agree with everything that he said but he spoke with great authority and expertise.
	The Budget comes at the same stage of the political cycle—when the Government are nine years into office and the Opposition are, I hope, destined to lose another two general elections—as the 1988 Budget delivered by Lord Lawson. I believe that this year's Budget avoids the macro-economic mistakes of Lord Lawson's 1988 Budget, and we can draw an interesting contrast between them.
	The 1988 Budget was based on three underlying assumptions: tax cuts were the best route to economic success; poverty, which was not even mentioned, could be solved by economic growth—the rising tide would lift all boats—and neglect of the public realm was an inevitable price that would have to be paid for private affluence.
	In place of those assumptions, the 2006 Budget proposes three alternatives. First, public investment is not a drain on the good economy but a pre-condition of it. Secondly, Government have a specific responsibility to use the proceeds of growth to tackle poverty and not simply let the distribution of wealth and income fall where it may. Thirdly, public splendour, not public squalor should be the counterpart of private affluence in the fourth richest country in the world.

Stewart Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Miliband: I shall give way later, but I want to make some progress first.
	I want to say a little about each premise. First, there is a genuinely interesting argument about the right response to globalisation and the balance between tax cuts and public investment. The question is simple: should it be a rule of economic policy that public spending must fall as a proportion of national income to provide room for a falling tax burden? The Budget, with its emphasis on the Chancellor's long-term ambition for education, rejects that premise because Labour Members believe that the right sort of public spending can contribute to economic growth and will not hinder it.
	To put the problem in the context of today's global economy, there is what might be called a "race to the bottom" model of economic development, whereby we should try to cut taxes as much as we can to be competitive. The problem with that model is that it cannot answer some basic questions about our country and our economy. For example, business makes representations about transport investment at every Budget. A skilled work force—not only in higher education and schools but level 2 and 3 work force skills—is important, and I welcome the extra money for schools in the Budget. The science base is an essential driver of innovation and enterprise. Again, I welcome the extra resources for science teaching in the Budget. The right policies for welfare to work, as well as child care and parental leave, are vital. I believe that there is now cross-party consensus that the good economy must be about gender equality, too, and that those policies are important.

Stewart Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Miliband: I will give way later, but I want to make some progress first.
	We do not need to gaze into a crystal ball to see the effects of saying that public spending must fall as a proportion of national income, because that is precisely what we saw in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including under the stewardship of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. By 1996–97, net public investment was just 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product—£6.9 billion at today's prices, compared with the £27.5 billion proposed for next year. That is the lesson of British economic history. It is public investment that gets cut when a squeeze in public spending happens, because that is where the easy and less noticeable cuts can be made. We end up paying for that in our economy, which will do badly in public infrastructure and basic education, as ours has done for many years. It is completely unclear to me how a small country such as ours—as opposed to the United States—can compete on that basis. That is why the right kind of public investment must be at the heart of our remaining competitive in the years ahead.

Stewart Jackson: The debate seems to be coalescing around how we can achieve social justice. As we are getting into a history lesson, has the hon. Gentleman ever pondered the fact that his party voted against the greatest transfers of capital to working people in modern times, namely privatisation and the sale of council houses? Has he ever thought that one through?

Edward Miliband: I personally think that that was a mistake, yes, although there was a legitimate issue about the replacement of council and social housing stock, and it remains an issue today.
	The second premise set out in my right hon. Friend's Budget was that poverty will not be solved simply by economic growth, and that it needs specific action. Given the increasing returns to skills and qualifications, the global economy has tendencies towards greater inequality. Our choice is either to accept this or to take action. The child poverty figures got a lot of publicity a couple of weeks ago because the Government missed their target of taking 1 million children out of poverty. That is true and it is a matter of regret. It is why we must do more. That is why I welcome the new measures announced in the Budget last week, including the decision to index the child tax credit to earnings.
	I appeal for candour, particularly to the shadow Chancellor when he winds up the debate, if we are genuinely to tackle child poverty. The only reason why we have achieved what we have is because, in Budget after Budget, my right hon. Friend has taken specific measures to tackle child poverty. How do I know that? Because the figures show that by relying solely on the proceeds of economic growth and without his measures on tax credits, the number of children in poverty would have gone up by 1.5 million. Instead, as a result of the measures that we have taken, the figure has gone down by 700,000. Child poverty is at it lowest point for nearly 20 years. But hon. Members need not take my word for that. In a recent document published after the latest figures came out, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded:
	"Child poverty has now fallen in every year since 1998/99, which is the longest period of sustained falls in child poverty since consistent data on relative poverty rate started to be available [in 1961]".
	That is, it is the most sustained fall in child poverty for 45 years. But where are the Opposition on all this?

Greg Clark: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his very thoughtful speech, but is he aware that that same report from the IFS makes it clear that, on the Government's present spending plans, they will not only miss their child poverty targets but slip even further behind them? So why has the Chancellor not committed more resources, if this is so central to his ambitions?

Edward Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should make it a priority to put money into tackling child poverty as resources become available in the years ahead, I completely agree with him, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor will have heard his representations.
	But where are the Opposition on this issue? The policy chief of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), gave a surprising interview to The Daily Telegraph on 23 December—it positively interrupted my pre-Christmas present buying—in which he said:
	"Of course inequality matters. Of course it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor".
	He went on:
	"It's more than a matter of safety nets . . . We should redistribute money."
	So presumably the Conservatives support the measures that we have taken. In fact, the shadow Chancellor has never, to my knowledge, said anything positive about tax credits. Indeed, he has spent most of his time saying we should cut tax credits. Of course, tax credits alone will not solve the problem. Active labour market policies, Sure Start and greater educational opportunities matter as well. It is fine to have a policy review, as the Conservatives are doing, but I do not see how anyone who genuinely cares about poverty can say in advance—before their policy review concludes—that public spending must fall as a share of national income. How can they make that decision before the conclusion of their policy review, if they care about poverty?
	Finally, I want to talk about how we can match growing private affluence with a strong public realm. In 1958, in "The Affluent Society", J.K. Galbraith wrote about the coexistence of private affluence with public squalor. It surely must be an aim of one of the richest countries in the world to show that this is not inevitable, and to create a public realm of which we can be proud.
	The figures on schools investment given last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are striking in that regard. Capital investment in schools was about £600 million in 1996–97, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was Chancellor; it has risen to £6 billion today, and it will rise to £8 billion by 2010–11. Let us be honest: that £600 million was nowhere near what was required to prevent the condition of our schools from getting worse, let alone to improve them. I believe that we can see the difference that higher capital spending is making in all our constituencies.
	This Budget opens important new fronts in the Government's mission to rebuild the public realm. For example, I care a lot about the long-neglected issue of youth spaces, youth clubs and youth institutions. We will never succeed in our campaign for respect among young people unless we give them decent spaces to which they can go. That is why I very much welcome the plan for a 10-year strategy for youth services. Of course that strategy must involve the voluntary sector—something that the Conservatives care a lot about these days. It must also reform the youth service, and draw in resources from the private sector. However, it is simply folly to pretend that these services can be built without public investment. I give the Opposition credit for saying that they care about these issues, but I say in all honesty that if they will the ends, they must also will the means.
	Is not the Conservatives' problem that, in 2006, their heads tell them that the philosophy of the Lawson Budget of 1988 is no longer what the public want, and that they must bury it, while their hearts tells them that they must not? Fifteen years after Margaret Thatcher went, they still do not know whether to bury Thatcherism or to praise it. These are the contradictions that we now see exposed in their response to the Budget.
	There are big questions to be answered about the condition of our country, about the challenges of globalisation, and about how to tackle poverty and strike the right balance between tax and spending. They are difficult questions, but last week my right hon. Friend set out a clear and principled course, and Labour Members can look forward to the arguments in the months and years ahead.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who made a thoughtful speech emphasising the steps being taken to alleviate child poverty. He took us back to the Lawson Budget. I remember that Budget: the top rate of income tax was reduced to 40 per cent., and I think that I am right in saying that there was some movement in the House when that announcement was made. If anyone had said at the time that, nine years into a Labour Government, the top rate of tax would remain at the level fixed by Nigel Lawson, nobody would have believed them.
	By committing themselves not to change the standard rate—or, indeed, the top rate—of tax, the Labour Government have got into tremendous difficulties. They have increased expenditure but, instead of raising taxes to meet that expenditure in a fair way, they have put increasing emphasis on taxes that are either regressive—such as the council tax—or difficult to collect, or that have damaged our international competitiveness. I believe that there are many hon. Members sitting alongside the hon. Member for Doncaster, North who would have preferred an honest Labour approach of funding increases in public expenditure by increasing personal taxation, which is a progressive, open, honest and cheap way of funding a Labour programme.

Greg Clark: Did my right hon. Friend notice that, in recalling the Lawson Budget, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) made no reference to another of Nigel Lawson's principles, namely tax simplification? It was his ambition to abolish a tax in every Budget, but the ambition of the present Chancellor seems to be to add a new tax at every Budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the wrong direction to take?

George Young: Yes, indeed. There is one minor modification, which I shall come to in a moment, involving a tax that the Chancellor introduced relatively recently and has just abolished in haste.
	I agree with those who say that if one considers the conventional economic indicators—growth, inflation, numbers of unemployed—one gets the impression of a benign economy. But I also agree with those like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who say that if one looks behind that, there are some worrying signs. For example, much of the current growth is funded by either private borrowing or high public spending, neither of which is sustainable in the longer term. One would have hoped for measures in the Budget to replace those engines of growth with other more sustainable ones, promoting an export-led recovery, private sector investment and an increase in private disposable incomes through productivity. When the hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about an adjustment in a few years' time, when the current engines of growth prove to be unsustainable, he put his finger on one of the more worrying long-term trends in the economy, which, in my view, the Budget did not address adequately.
	I agree with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that if one wants to understand the overall impact of the Budget, the best thing to do is not to listen to it but to read the economic press about two days later, which gives a much better picture of what is going on. Any Chancellor must make a balanced decision between two imperatives: on the one hand, a pulverising if partial interpretation of the Budget to satisfy the audience in the Chamber, and on the other, a calmer more balanced interpretation from the wider world. We have moved too far towards the former. The selective presentation in Budget speeches is one contributory cause of the public's growing cynicism towards politicians, about which we are all concerned.
	Yesterday, that point was well made to the Treasury Committee by Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He rightly identified 45 policy decisions listed in the Red Book on pages 188 and 189. Seventeen of those were listed in the Chancellor's speech. Those 17 total £553 million, either in spending increases or tax reductions—good news. Twenty-eight, however, were either not mentioned or mentioned in passing, and those, totalling £780 million, were the bad news. I want to return to one or two things that the Chancellor did not mention.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) winds up, I hope that he will say that my party will vote against resolution 26 on income tax and computer equipment, which withdraws the tax allowance to encourage employees to work from home. In the Red Book, that change appears under "modernising the tax system". I am not sure why it appears in that category. If one wanted a justification of the accusation that the Chancellor was an analogue politician in a digital age, the withdrawal of that form of relief would be it. The relief was introduced only three years ago by the Chancellor, and it hits a number of buttons. It promotes a better work-life balance, reduces the need to commute and travel into the office, and promotes a wider understanding of IT through having more equipment in the home. I cannot understand why, at two weeks' notice, against a background of the Department of Trade and Industry promoting the scheme on its website, it is suddenly to be withdrawn. I hope that there might be second thoughts, and perhaps a postponement of the scheme for two years to allow the benefit to filter through.
	I want to focus on one of the items not mentioned by the Chancellor in his speech—the cancellation of the pensioner council tax rebate. That has saved the Government £1 billion, but one will not find that figure in the Chancellor's speech or the Red Book. In the section, "Fairness for Pensioners", I read:
	"The Government is committed to tackling pensioner poverty and rewarding saving, and to enabling people to meet their retirement income aspirations in an ageing society."
	There is no mention of the cancellation of the rebate in that section, but it does mention the continuation of the winter fuel payments, which are of roughly the same value, and highlights free bus travel. I find it amazing that the Budget decision that perhaps has the greatest impact on the highest number of people was mentioned neither in the Budget speech nor in the Red Book. It seemed to me that the withdrawal of £200 from every pensioner household not on benefit might be worth just a passing reference under "Budget measures and their impact on households", on page 11 of the Red Book, but it is not there. It is glossed over in paragraph 1.36, which looks back to 1997 to give a slightly different perspective of what has happened to pensioners, in contrast to an earlier paragraph on families with children, which compares the position this year as against the previous year.
	What has happened since last year for the Government to change their view on the pensioner rebate? In the pre-Budget report before the last election, the Chancellor said:
	"A society is judged by its generosity to its children and the elderly, who have served the community all their lives."
	He went on to say:
	"This Pre-Budget Report therefore announces that, in addition to these existing measures"—
	the winter fuel payments—
	"the Government will make a payment of £50 to households with someone over age 70 in 2005."
	In the 2005 Budget, however, he increased that sum. On 16 March 2005, he said:
	"In 1997, there was no winter fuel allowance. This autumn, we will again pay a £200 winter fuel allowance for pensioners—£300 for the over-80s. In the pre-Budget report, I announced a £50 council tax refund. Today, with the resources now available, I can announce that we will pay to every pensioner household, 65 and over, paying council tax, a refund not of £50 but a council tax refund of £200—a measure that is fairer and worth more to more pensioners than all other proposed schemes."—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 269.]
	The Budget 2005 Red Book made it absolutely clear that that was to help with the council tax:
	"The Government understands the position of older people on fixed incomes facing pressures such as council tax bills."
	The Chancellor went on to announce the additional item.
	Last year, council tax had increased by £525 since 1997, when the Government took office. Against that background, it was worth introducing additional help of £200. This year, the council tax has increased by £579 since 1997, but that extra help is suddenly no longer available. The Government boast that the average council tax has gone up by £54, but not if one is a pensioner—for a pensioner, it has gone up by £254. That wipes out the increase in the state retirement pension for a large number of people. People wonder why there is any cynicism in politics. The most cynical decision that the Government have taken is to spend £800 million last year, just before a general election, on a £200 pensioner rebate, and a year later, when the council tax is even higher, to withdraw it and not even announce it in the Budget and the Red Book.
	Will the Chief Secretary answer two questions? First, when the Deputy Prime Minister agreed with the Chancellor the sum for block grant for local authorities last December, did the Chancellor tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he planned to withdraw the £200 rebate and therefore make the presentation of the council tax even more difficult? Secondly, was it not the case that, if the council tax was about to be replaced, the Treasury might have been able to afford the rebate for another year or two? It has now realised that the council tax will not be replaced, probably for the lifetime of this Parliament, and for that reason has decided that it simply cannot afford to carry on with the £800 million or £1 billion cost of the scheme.
	When the Chancellor gives his next Budget—I think that he will give another one—I hope that it will include a measure to deal with the issue that I have talked about, and to deal with the more strategic issue of what will replace the council tax in the longer term, and how we will come up with a fairer system of funding local government.

Michael Meacher: The main Opposition speech today came not from their Front Bench but from the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He was at his most recklessly expansive, making Cassandra-like prophecies of doom. Many of his comments, however, were a bit rich coming from him. He said that the reduction in the growth of spending in future had not been made clear. In fact, it has been announced repeatedly that, after 2008, there will be a slowdown in the growth of spending after an unprecedented surge of spending over many years. He talked of fiscal drag, but fiscal drag has been used by all Chancellors, not least the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that spending Departments would have to make significant cuts in future years without knowing where the money would come from, but efficiency savings were imposed year after year after year by Tory Governments without Departments having any idea of where the savings were to be made. He referred to low growth of 1.8 per cent. What he did not say, of course, is that that follows an unprecedented and unbroken run of high growth for eight years previously. He made several comparisons with 1992, saying that the level of this or that was lower than it had been then. I remind the House that 1992 is a very significant date: during that year, the Tory Government was unceremoniously pitched out of the exchange rate mechanism.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not know how the economy would bounce back. None of us can know, but we have heard the same thing time and again, and on each occasion the pessimism has turned out to be unjustified.
	After all that rumbustious, knockabout criticism, which I suppose we are meant to enjoy, the only remedy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could come up with was his proposition that we did indeed need improvements in productivity and investment. Of course we all agree on that, but it is exactly what this Government have been doing for years, not least in the Budget.
	Let me now turn to a slightly more sober assessment of the Budget—

Kenneth Clarke: Of course there are years in which growth in spending must be constrained below the growth of the economy, and the beginning of the 14 years of growth that we have enjoyed was accompanied by a long period of that kind, for which I was responsible. What I do not understand is why the Government put that in the Red Book and then deny that it is what they are doing, and why they attack the Conservative party vigorously every time we suggest that there is an urgent need to restrain the growth of public spending, as if we were doing horrendous damage to public services. The Chancellor is actually preparing to reduce growth in public spending below the likely rate of growth in GDP for several years following 2008, to remedy the problems that he has got into and the damage that has been done to the public finances since 2000.

Michael Meacher: We should certainly see what happens after 2008, but I do not think that we need any lessons from the Tory party about the level of public expenditure. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give the Government credit for achieving a much higher run of public expenditure over many years than we have had before, his prophecies of doom might carry rather more credibility.
	The Budget contained many excellent provisions, not least on education, but, surprisingly, one foundation of our national prosperity was not much mentioned. I refer to the state of our manufacturing industry. Prominent attention was given to knowledge-based services, but they account for only a fraction of total export earnings—less than a third of the earnings from the export of manufactured goods. They pay for only a quarter of the expenditure on manufactured goods that we want to buy. Yet our manufacturing base, which is the lifeblood of the country, is in long-term decline, and that continues. Output continues to fall and we are losing 100,000 jobs a year, without any prospect that the services sector will ever be large enough to compensate for the weakness of manufacturing. The facts are stark, and not just one Government are responsible. The position dates back over many decades. The share of manufacturing in total UK output has almost halved since 1979.
	That is serious enough, but in recent years it has been accelerating. In 1970, fewer than 10 per cent. of manufactured goods sold in the UK were imported; now the proportion is 60 per cent. Whereas in other developed countries manufacturing output has been growing—although, admittedly, less than the services sector—the key point is that in Britain there has been not just a relative but an absolute fall in manufacturing in recent years. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that if those trends continued, manufacturing in Britain could almost face extinction within 30 years or so.
	I am well aware that the decline in manufacturing jobs is seen in some circles as a sign of healthy efficiency rather than failure. Despite the avalanche of Chinese-made goods that is hitting western shops, the free trade lobby draws attention to the continuing expansion of manufacturing output in most developed countries. It recognises that jobs have been lost, but claims that that is because workers are replaced by new technology to boost productivity, while labour-intensive sectors such as the textile sector have given way to higher-tech ones such as IT and pharmaceuticals. Low-skilled jobs, they say, have moved offshore, while higher-value-added research and development, design and marketing have prospered at home.
	There are several things wrong with that argument. First, China and India are not dominant merely in low-tech sectors. They are turning out a third of a million new engineers each year, and are rapidly entering high-tech and service areas such as design, software and digital technologies. Moving upstream—the current conventional wisdom—will not escape Asian competition at cut-price rates.
	Secondly, where new jobs have been created in Britain over the past decade they have been largely low-paid, low-skilled and often part-time jobs in retail, catering, entertainment and care services.
	Thirdly, there is a regional mismatch. Manufacturing jobs have been lost largely in the north, while the expansion of business and financial services has been skewed to the south. There is a danger that continuing manufacturing losses, combined with the lack of any effective regional industrial strategy—which we have seen in this country for about 30 years—will leave large swathes of the country outside the south and the south-east increasingly denuded of highly paid and attractive jobs.
	It is also worrying that Britain has been hit harder than other developed economies. After the oil shock of 1973, US manufacturing output has grown by about 120 per cent. Ours has grown by 15 per cent. US companies now achieve more than twice the production level since then with the same number of workers, while British companies produce about the same as they did before with almost half as many workers. Productivity here has been almost exclusively at the expense of labour-shedding, and I think that that is perhaps the biggest failing of the British economy over the past quarter of a century.
	How can that endemic failure be addressed, and how can de-industrialisation be halted, as I believe it must be? I think that the Government were absolutely right to identify the key problem as the well-documented gap between the productivity of the UK and that of its major competitors such as France, Germany and the United States. They have genuinely tried to raise Britain's traditionally low levels of skill, investment, research and development and innovation. Statistics show that over the past quarter of a century the UK seems to have closed the skills gap between us and the US, but there is still a significant skills gap between us and European countries such as France and Germany. Interestingly, in higher skills—at university levels—we just about match those countries, but we are still far behind when it comes to intermediate skills, by which I mean technical qualifications such as higher national diplomas. Many experts say that those represent the hinges of economic performance, and I think that they require more attention.
	Another area of chronic UK weakness that still remains is investment. Despite all the Government's efforts—they have put in a great deal of effort—Britain has performed significantly worse than all its main competitors in terms of capital investment per worker hour. A recent cross-national study found that German, French, US and Japanese levels were no less than one third to two thirds higher than the UK level. That is a massive gap.
	I accept that the UK record has strengthened markedly in the last decade. The quality of capital has also improved, which is important, and the impressive growth in information and communications technology investment has begun to have an impact on output growth. However, getting UK plc to invest adequately is still a big problem.
	Britain also continues to lag badly in R and D expenditure. Again, many studies have shown that such expenditure contributes significantly to productivity growth. Despite the Government's welcome and substantial encouragement of business R and D, not least in the Budget, Britain still spends far less of its GDP on R and D—as much as 45 per cent. less than Japan and the US. Moreover, it is a serious weakness that British R and D, such as it is, has been much too heavily concentrated on two industries—defence and pharmaceuticals—instead of being cascaded across industrial sectors, where technological capability is now more important than price competitiveness.
	Another factor is almost wholly ignored, which the Government should take on board. As the London McKinsey strategy consultancy recently commented, many UK manufacturers fail to implement management methods, including involving shop-floor workers in improving production, that rivals abroad have recognised produce results and have therefore taken on. Improving people management and working practices should be central to the Government agenda, rather than being treated as subsidiary to investment, innovation, skills and competitive labour and product markets.
	Another worrying point is particularly disturbing at present: Britain's current manufacturing weakness, combined with the Government's neo-liberal ideology, has exposed some of Britain's most prized industrial assets—P&O, BAA, Standard Chartered Bank, Centrica, BOC and Pilkington—to foreign takeover. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the occasional foreign takeover, but industrial jewels such as those have been auctioned off—thus gaining, in effect, subcontractor status—to pay off very large deficits. Losses of that scale at the highest reaches of industry need to be stemmed if Britain's overall national manufacturing capability is not to be irredeemably mortgaged beyond democratic control.
	Above all, if we think that market forces are paramount, let us look at the US. The US record has been built on not only unalloyed market forces, but on heavy R and D expenditure, channelled through the universities; on military Keynesianism; on Government procurement, as a protagonist for US industry; on a resort to protectionism, where foreign pressures become too great; and on a low dollar exchange rate to assist exports. If that is market ideology, we need more of it here.

Adam Price: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and to hear in his speech echoes of what, in my youth, we used to call the alternative economic strategy, which is much needed even today.
	I was struck by something said by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Of course, it is true that economic policy has become slightly boring under this Government, although that could be to the Chancellor's credit. Balance of payments crises were enlivening, but that was of little cheer to the people who suffered as a result. Not even the Chancellor, with his considerable reserves of self-belief, would argue that he has abolished the business cycle. Crises may not be as cyclical as they were under previous Governments, but they are structural, sectoral and spatial.
	I want to talk about the pensions crisis, future and present, the manufacturing crisis, past and present—it may not have much of a future, as the right hon. Gentleman has argued—and the energy crisis that is looming on the horizon. I also want to talk about the north-south divide, which can hardly be called a crisis because it has been with us so long. Certainly, in Wales, we can trace it as far back as the collapse in coal prices in 1924. Despite its long pedigree, it is no less serious, and it has worsened under the Government's charge.
	Let me take pensions first. I am not referring to the looming deficit in the public sector pensions, which is obviously very much in the forefront of our minds today; I am talking particularly about the problem of deficits in the corporate sector that have clearly caused 85,000 workers to lose their pensions over the past few years. Sadly, they have not been recompensed in full by the Government. There is a huge problem with pension liabilities in the private sector, and more and more companies are being pushed into bankruptcy, which is causing massive job losses. As a result, companies are increasingly diverting some of the money that would have been available for capital investment—we have heard about the downward pressure on business investment—to their pension schemes because of those liabilities.
	A large part of the problem is of the Government's making—it is within their control—and I am talking about gilt yields, which have reached absurdly low levels under this Government. Of course, the lower the yield with gilts, the bigger the pension fund deficit. Long-term index-linked bond yields are now at 0.75 per cent. Although that is ridiculously low, it is, of course, very good news for the Government's Debt Management Office, but bad news for virtually everyone else: bad news for pensioners and for the companies that are facing huge problems.
	Of course, the Government argue that there is no clear evidence that increased pension contributions have significantly affected business investment in aggregate, according to the Budget statement. They argue that there is record profitability in the corporate sector, so it should have the resources even to cope with those higher demands. The problem is that profitability is uneven in the corporate sector. Many of the companies, particularly in the manufacturing sector, that have final salary schemes and are therefore coming under the greatest pressure do not have the profitability that is evident in, for example, the banking sector. That argument simply does not hold.
	The reasons for the problems with gilt yields relate to the fact that the Financial Services Authority has changed the rules on solvency for insurers, forcing them to hold more gilts, as a result of its interpretation of the bear market, and particularly to the introduction of the Pension Protection Fund, which, given the risk-based levy, is creating a huge incentive for pension funds to take on more long-term bonds, which are lower earning but lower risk. As a result, we have the bizarre position that the pensions industry is driving up the price of gilts, thus leading to lower yields.
	Of course, the pensions industry will suffer more than any other because of falling yields. We have a vicious cycle. The Government are not issuing enough bonds. Promises were made. The industry was expecting £70 billion in extra bonds, but got only £63 billion. The analysis of most independent observers is that there is a structural deficit of long-term bonds running into hundreds of billions of pounds, given the need of pension funds to take on Government securities.
	There is an insatiable demand, which will drive down gilt yields even further—thus driving more companies out of business, causing more pension fund deficits and possibly overloading the Pension Protection Fund, behind which the Government have so far refused to stand in the event of a major crisis. I hope that the Chancellor is not doing that because it is a source of long-term cheap finance. That would be an incredibility short-term policy, especially as the current position is not sustainable.
	The manufacturing position has been well outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, and I need not support his comments further. We have experienced a serious fall in the growth of business investment, as well as in spending on R and D. The Government have said that one of the key long-term determinants of productivity growth is the amount of capital investment per worker. As has been argued, there has been a sustained, long-term failure on the part of the UK business sector to invest capital. I was interested to hear in the Budget statement the figures on business investment, which now include private finance initiative capital investment. Previously, expenditure on the health and education infrastructure would have been included under Government investment; now, it is included under business investment. If one removes that element from the figures, it is clear that business investment growth is even worse. We need to be absolutely clear that the £10 billion extra that is being included next year will distort the business investment figures.
	In addition to problems with manufacturing and the poor record on business investment, the transport infrastructure is very poor. Incredibly, this week's official figures show that on average—I do not exaggerate—roads in Wales are resurfaced every 97 years. That is incredible. I can think of no other country in western Europe, let alone one in eastern Europe, that is in such a position. Moreover, there is the ongoing tale of UK workers with very low skills levels, problems with basic literacy and numeracy, and the problem of rising energy costs.
	All of that feeds into the growing north-south divide. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to the Government study on English cities, published at the time of the Budget, which itself pointed out that the "industrial powerhouses" of the past—Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle—have found that
	"the transition to a knowledge-led service-based economy has not been easy".
	That is an understatement, if ever there was one. The report goes on to show that the problem is the "over-dominance of London" in the UK economy. We have been making that point ad nauseam for many years. Cambridge Econometrics' figures, published this week, show that the situation is getting worse under this Government. According to its report, growth in the past nine years has been slowest in Scotland and in the north of England, where gross domestic product rose by 6 per cent., rather than by the UK average of 24 per cent., over the same period. That is a huge divergence in economic performance. It is only because of the downturn in the London financial services sector in the past three years that the divergence has not worsened.
	So what do we get? Because of recent problems with London's financial services sector, we get a report on the problems of London's financial services sector. Where was Government leadership on the problems of the manufacturing-based economies of the west and the north of these islands? We in Wales have experienced a net loss of 72,000 manufacturing jobs since this Labour Government took office. Indeed, under their policies there has been a net loss of 7,000 manufacturing jobs in the past year alone. They should not be sanguine about unemployment. Unemployment in Wales is rising twice as fast as in the rest of the UK—a pattern that we will begin to see in all the regions in which manufacturing is still the economic base. Of course, the intermediate business services that serve that sector are also vital to our economies.
	Under this Labour Government, there are even 11 UK localities that have seen a real-terms decrease in gross value added per person. That is incredible: 11 localities are actually going backwards in real terms under a supposedly socialist, redistributionist Government. Four of the five localities at the bottom of that list are in Scotland and Wales. The stark message is that we will have less of the policy-based evidence-making that we have seen too much of under this Government. The UK's regional, local and   national economies have become more divergent, more quickly, than even under the Government of Mrs. Thatcher.

Iain Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), whose technical expertise in these matters is obviously very great. I want also to pay tribute to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who unfortunately is no longer in his place. He took us back to the year 1988, which I remember very well. That year, I did my GCSEs, left school and met my future wife—so it was not all good.
	I want to concentrate on how the broad macro-economic factors mentioned in the Budget will impact on my region of the north-east. With that in mind, I was particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) contributed to this debate, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is also hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I warmly welcome the Budget's emphasis on addressing the drivers of productivity: improving competition, promoting enterprise, supporting science and innovation, raising skills levels and encouraging investment. Addressing these issues is a prime concern in my region. We in the north-east have reason to be optimistic, and given that it is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's 10th Budget, it may be worth pointing out that in the past 10 years we have seen a 10 per cent. increase in the number of jobs in the region. The number of business start-ups is increasing and more young businesses are surviving—at a better rate, in fact, than in any other region. However, we need to address the long-term structural weaknesses in the north-east's economy and our economic performance in relation to the rest of the country.
	Despite improvements, far too few people in our region are in employment. For example, unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 9.9 per cent. in 1996 to 4.6 per cent. now, but that is still too high. Although the north-east has broadly the same ratio of working people to the total population as the national average, some 11 per cent. fewer are economically active. It has been estimated that if the north-east raised the proportion of people in work to 80 per cent.—the Government's medium-term target—its output would increase by some £12 billion. That would have a tremendous impact on the UK economy, but more importantly, it would transform the lives of the people of the north-east.
	Our skills profile is also relatively low. Despite real improvements since 1997, our region still suffers from appalling disadvantages at the lower end of the skills sector. More than a third of the working population have either no qualification or are qualified below level 2—four to five percentage points below the rest of the country. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has rightly identified, globalisation and intense competition from the likes of China and India will make it increasingly difficult for those with low skills to be part of our economy. For economic reasons, but also for social and moral ones, we as a country need to move away from low-paid, low-skilled work. On reading yesterday's Hansard, I was particularly struck by the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). I agreed with everything that they said in promoting manufacturing in the north-west and the midlands.
	The north-east still has a relatively high proportion of manufacturing industries and jobs. Speaking as a Member who wants the north-east to retain and build on its reputation as an area of excellence in manufacturing, I believe that the threat from China and India means that we will have to be even more innovative, and provide the world with higher value-added manufacturing goods. The region therefore has to be even more determined to improve its skills base, and to do so faster than other parts of the country.
	The third structural weakness is that our region's culture suffers from a relative lack of enterprise. Despite recent success, our region has significantly lower business start-up rates than other parts of the country. Both public-funded and privately funded research and development is disproportionately concentrated in the south of England. However, I hope that the expansion of R and D tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises announced in the Budget will help matters.
	The culture to which I refer goes back decades. The north-east has suffered greatly from the legacy of heavy manufacturing decline. In the 20th century, towns such as Hartlepool did not have the cultural identity to encourage enterprise. Men such as my grandfather were part of a mass work force in the shipyards, steelworks and factories. Tens of tens of thousands of men—they were predominantly men—were employed to do the same thing, often for years at a time. Innovation, enterprise and creativity were not encouraged because they were not considered necessary.
	When decline came in the 1970s and 1980s, exacerbated by the policy decisions of the last Conservative Government, we saw mass unemployment and the subsequent social problems that accompany it. Culturally, the collective psyche of Hartlepool and the north-east found it understandably difficult to move on from the safe, risk-averse feeling of being part of a large work force to being risk-aware, innovative and ambitious, so I welcome the Budget announcements to encourage enterprise and instil a culture of entrepreneurialism. I agree with the excellent points in a similar vein made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy).
	A local enterprise growth initiative—or LEGI—was announced in last year's Budget, to provide substantial sums to the most deprived areas to stimulate economic activity and productivity. The first round of successful applicants was announced recently and I was disappointed that Hartlepool was not included, although as my speech is about the north-east economy, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who secured LEGI funding. I hope that Hartlepool will be more successful in the second round of LEGI funding in 2007–08, because I genuinely believe that my constituency, which has some of the most deprived areas in the country, requires that investment to boost activity, performance and productivity.
	I welcome the moves in the Budget towards enterprise education: the creation of the schools enterprise education network, the establishment of enterprise summer school pathfinders and the launch of the United States enterprise scholarship scheme for undergraduates. The argument that enterprise can be learned in a classroom may be sneered at in some quarters, but such schemes play a large role in embedding a can-do attitude and fostering an enterprise culture that provides young people with the confidence to start their own business or to suggest innovations in the workplace. In the long term, that must be good for the productivity of our economy.
	Closely linked to the enterprise culture is the need for high skills in the workplace. The Chancellor's emphasis on education in his Budget statement was absolutely right. Education is the route out of poverty and the real way to transform lives. The opportunity to receive a good education should not be based on who a child's parents are or how much money they have. My right hon. Friend was right to point out that increased investment in education makes a real difference. We need only look at my constituency to see that.
	In Hartlepool, we have doubled spending per pupil since 1997. We have increased the number of teachers and doubled the number of classroom assistants. As a result, Hartlepool has achieved the fastest improving education results in the country over the last few years. The percentage of 11-year-olds achieving the accepted level or above in English has risen from 48 to 79 per cent. The percentage of 14-year-olds achieving the accepted level or above in maths has risen from 47 to 75 per cent. In 1997, only 30 per cent. of children left school with five GCSEs at grades A to C; now, the figure is 53 per cent. More students than ever are going on to study A-levels and going to university. So it is quite insulting that on the day of the Budget the shadow Chief Secretary said, on "BBC News 24", that increasing state school spending was "not the answer".
	My concern about those real improvements in education is that well-educated young people are moving away to university and being sucked into the economic powerhouses of London, the south-east and other cities, which means that towns such as Hartlepool are losing their foundation for ongoing economic success. A sense of place is vital to boost productivity and prosperity in deprived areas such as mine, and I hope that the initiatives announced in the Budget will do more to encourage people to stay in the north-east and grow businesses.
	Obviously, there is more to do, but I am encouraged by the progress made so far and feel passionately that the Chancellor's announcements last Wednesday will improve matters still further.

Daniel Kawczynski: During the general election campaign, quite a few senior citizens in Shrewsbury told me that they were tempted to vote Conservative but would actually vote Labour because of the £200 grant that they would receive towards their council tax. They were under the impression that the Labour Government would help them with council tax and they were grateful.

Edward Leigh: Was Leo Blair one of them?

Daniel Kawczynski: Leo Blair is one of my constituents, but I did not discuss that matter with him.
	It now transpires that the £200 grant will be taken away. In Shrewsbury, council tax is due to rise by about 4 per cent. this year, which will add £50 to the bill for an average band D property, so senior citizens in Shrewsbury will have to find an extra £250 towards their council tax bills compared to last year. That is a disgrace. How does the Chancellor expect senior citizens in Shrewsbury miraculously to find an extra £250?
	The Chancellor said a great deal about how he will help with concessionary travel, but Shrewsbury council officers say that the Government are not giving them enough money to provide it—there will be a shortfall of at least £200,000. That will have to come from the local council, which will have to raise taxes to meet it. On the one hand the Government take great credit for providing incentives, yet on the other, they shove the responsibility and cost of providing the services on to local authorities.
	I feel passionately about the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which I have described in the past as my beloved hospital. It is £30 million in debt, with a strong possibility of 300 job cuts there and at neighbouring Telford hospital in the coming year. I find that absolutely petrifying, as do my constituents. There are also threats to services.
	There was nothing about health in the Budget and the Chancellor has let the problem of NHS deficits go to the wall. He does not seem to want to take responsibility for them. In March 2005, when I was a Conservative parliamentary candidate, a delegation from the hospital visited me. It included senior consultants, doctors and medical practitioners, who told me, "We are extremely concerned about the forthcoming financial deficits, but we are not allowed to raise our concerns publicly. We have been told that in the run-up to a general election we are to keep our mouths shut."

Edward Miliband: Did those nurses and doctors say whether they thought the NHS was better than it was in 1997?

Daniel Kawczynski: I think they said that some things were better but that other things were far worse.
	We managed to highlight the problem in the local papers in March 2005, but a year later nothing has been done to address it. I am about to say something controversial—nobody has said this so far: we are all passionate about our country and we all want our Olympic contestants to do extremely well in the games, but when the Royal Shrewsbury hospital is £30 million in debt, my doctors and nurses face the sack and we have a crisis in the national health service, the Chancellor should not be giving £200 million to the Olympic team. Controversial. But that is how passionately I feel about the Royal Shrewsbury hospital.
	My second point is about carbon dioxide emissions. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is looking into our obligations on CO 2 emissions. The Chancellor has imposed a tax on 4x4 vehicles and the Lib Dems have repeatedly campaigned about them, saying that they will tax 4x4s until the pips squeak. They fail to realise that many people in rural constituencies, living in villages such as Cardington, which is perched on top of a large hill, or running farms, need a 4x4 to get around. So, the Chancellor is penalising hard-working farmers and families who live in rural areas. By imposing the tax, he is certainly not going to stop super-rich people in Westminster from buying those large vehicles. Why is he using a blatant tool such as this to punish people who live in rural communities?

Martin Horwood: I note that the hon. Gentleman was casting some aspersions about the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to rural areas. Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) when he said:
	"The restructuring of vehicle excise duty is welcome but will not go far enough . . . The cost for gas guzzlers will be less than one full tank of petrol and brings with it no protection for the small number in rural areas who have a genuine need for four-wheel drive vehicles"?
	Does he accept that that is actually our position?

Daniel Kawczynski: All that I know is that a lot of people in my constituency—farmers and people who live in rural areas—will be adversely affected by the tax.
	I was visited by 45 ladies from the Shropshire women's institute. We had a splendid afternoon together.

Edward Leigh: I hope that they kept their clothes on.

Daniel Kawczynski: Well, we discussed a range of issues. Many of them live in very rural communities and they highlighted their anger about the tax.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the moves that the Government are making to reduce CO 2 emissions and meet our Kyoto targets. As he knows and as the Prime Minister said on Australian television today, Great Britain accounts for only 2 per cent. of CO 2 emissions. I would have been far more impressed with the Chancellor if he had managed to bring to the House an agreement with the Chinese Finance Minister, Mr. Jin Renqing, and if he could convince him to take the matter seriously and to reduce China's CO 2 emissions. If the Chancellor could present the House with a treaty that the Chinese had signed to reduce CO 2 emissions, that would impress me. He is doing very little to make the Chinese more obliging on this matter.
	There was no help for public sector workers. As has been mentioned already, today we have had the largest strike since 1926. Many public sector workers in Shrewsbury are striking today and feel very concerned about the fact that their pensions are going to be changed. They believe that some of the things that are happening in relation to the pension changes are contrary to the law of the land. I am sure that those things will be tested through the courts. What a shame that that the Chancellor did absolutely nothing in the Budget to help those people. I recently saw a delegation of such people in Shrewsbury. Some of them are strong Labour voters, but they informed me that they will never vote Labour again, which greatly encouraged me.
	I do not think that farmers have been mentioned today, but, as I represent an agricultural constituency, I wanted to raise the issue. In particular, I want to talk about dairy farmers. I am so concerned about dairy farmers that I am setting up an all-party group on the issue. Some 70 Members have joined from all sections of the House. I am glad that the Chancellor has just entered the Chamber. What a shame that he failed to say a single thing about our farmers and the crisis that British agriculture is facing. He is so obsessed with Labour strongholds that he fails to remember the crisis of our rural community. There was not a single extra penny for that, in a week when there have been calls for the resignation of Lord Bach, who has appallingly mismanaged the single farm payments scheme, which has had appalling ramifications for Shropshire and Shrewsbury dairy farmers. In fact, I know of only one farmer who has received his single farm payment so far. We were promised that the bulk of our farmers would receive their payments by the end of March. It is now the end of March and next to none of them have received their payments. Before the Chancellor leaves the Chamber, I hope that he takes on board my strong concern—[Interruption.] No, he is not taking it on board; he is leaving—as usual. But I hope that, in the future, he does take on board the concerns of Shrewsbury dairy farmers.
	Lastly, I will talk about something close to my heart. Today, I held a Westminster Hall debate on the provision of money to senior citizens who are in care homes or nursing homes. Unfortunately, not a single extra Member of Parliament attended my debate, which I was very disappointed about. However, the issue is huge and affects a lot of people in Shrewsbury. I have many people coming to see me who have had to sell their parents' home to pay for long-term care for them. I know that my generation will not be able to rely on the state to provide such care, which is why we will have to take out insurance policies to look after our parents, but members of this generation believe that it is the responsibility of the national health service and the state to provide long-term care in nursing homes. So I am very regretful—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) is making hand movements at me. I am not quite sure what he is trying to say.

Edward Miliband: The point that I was making is that, listening very intently to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I have heard lots of proposals for tax cuts and lots of proposals for more spending. I wonder whether he thinks that those two things add up.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have the benefit of not being on the Front Bench, so I can say what I like, quite frankly. On that note, I will conclude my speech.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to take part in the Budget debate and to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who seemed not to acknowledge that spending on the NHS is now at a record high and that we are going to have an increase of £6 billion next year. He displayed the attitude to climate change that Labour Members are becoming used to hearing: he willed the ends, but not the means. Indeed, from what he was saying about China, he seemed to be looking urgently for a translation from Shrewsbury to Shanghai. I am also pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who spoke about manufacturing, which is a concern in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), whose seat is in the north-east and who spoke eloquently and with compassion about the needs in the north-east.
	Last November we held a conference in Bishop Auckland to examine the needs of the local economy, which is largely manufacturing based. We brought together small and large businesses, trade unionists, academics and policy makers to consider how to develop our manufacturing sector in an economy increasingly dominated by services and threatened by low-cost competition, and how we will ensure that workers have the skills needed to innovate and encourage entrepreneurship.
	I believe that active government can make a difference to local economic success. In the north-east we should resist the temptation to engage in special pleading based on relative economic weakness. Instead, we must focus on using the potential of local people, too many of whom are still workless and, as my hon. Friend described, lack the skills and confidence to succeed. We need to create a framework that encourages businesses to innovate, invest and grow. That cannot be achieved through a laissez-faire approach that assumes that the market will take care of everything. It requires active intervention by Government agencies to embed skills in the work force, develop transport and communications infrastructure, and strengthen business networks.
	At the conference, Professor Ian Stone of Durham university business school pointed out that 100 years ago the north-east economy had all the qualities that we need now: leading edge sectors, a strong demand for products and services, high levels of innovation, dynamic industrial clusters, a skilled work force, high productivity and growth, and net inward migration of skills. Of course there are examples of that today, such as NETPark, on the border between my constituency and the Prime Minister's. It is a partnership between the local authority, the university and the private sector to promote new technology. None the less, we need to strengthen such qualities.
	George Cowcher of the North East chamber of commerce undertook an interesting survey of what manufacturing companies in my constituency wanted. Their priorities were work force skills, better transport infrastructure, less red tape, better business support and access to finance. Tommy Brennan of the GMB called for support for manufacturers and environmentally friendly technologies. I shall assess the Budget against those demands.
	First, on work force skills, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is surely right to increase resources in our schools. There has been a tenfold rise in schools investment since 1997, and the 50 per cent. rise in schools investment next year will make a huge difference. For example, there will be a completely new school in the village of Byers Green, where teachers and pupils are now struggling in a 1915 building. The extra money for science teachers and new science clubs will be welcomed both in the Glaxo plant in Barnard Castle in my constituency and in Bishop Barrington school, which I visited recently. The school has had one new lab, but needs another one. The Chancellor's approach will build on collaborations such as that in the north-east process industry cluster, which provides visits and science training for local schools.
	The new entitlement to, and grants for, further education for people up to 25 will have a significant impact in my constituency. Bishop Auckland college is now getting a completely new building to accommodate the 60 per cent. rise in students in the past five years.
	On transport infrastructure, County Durham needs better roads going south and north. The extra £800 million outlined in the Red Book is enabling the A66 between North Yorkshire and County Durham to be dualled, which will both improve safety and cut business costs.
	As someone who used to run a small voluntary organisation, which is a sort of small business, I am sympathetic to calls from business for less red tape. I am sure that business will benefit from the new code for risk-based regulation and the proposals to introduce that in Europe, too.
	Manufacturers in my constituency said that they wanted business support and more streamlined one-stop shops. The growing role of the manufacturing advisory service, and a smaller number of business services offering more targeted support, represent the right way to go. There are young entrepreneurs in the north-east who will benefit from the national enterprise network of 200 summer schools. Accessing finance for small and growing businesses can be hard, so the proposal to expand the R and D tax credit, the new tax relief for investment in venture capital trusts and the £100 million of new money to double enterprise capital funds are all welcome.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals to support our renewables and energy efficiency industry will achieve three objectives—our climate change targets, our obligations to the developing world, and the sustainable development of our manufacturing base. The new environmental research institute and the seed-corn finance for the first enterprise capital fund for the environment demonstrate the Government's commitment to action, which contrasts sharply with the position of Opposition Members. In addition to the 5 per cent. biofuels quota, the increase in the duty differential for biofuels will be of particular benefit to Farmway—a farmers co-op in my constituency engaged in its manufacture.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, in the north-east, labour market participation is below the national average. Sue Stirling of the Institute for Public Policy Research north believes that if we could get recipients of incapacity benefit into work, we would close the gap. There is already a successful pilot at the Bishopgate medical centre to support people back into work, so the proposals to reform the linking rules for incapacity benefit, which discourage some people from experimenting with taking jobs, are very welcome.
	Before the Budget, I met members of the Wear Valley pensioners association. One of the things that they most wanted to see was the extension of free bus passes nationwide, so I am sure that they welcome the £250 million that the Chancellor is providing for free bus travel nationwide next year. Such travel will be available to all 17,600 pensioners in my constituency.
	In February I visited Mr. and Mrs. Hodgson, who had benefited from a Warm Front grant. Improving energy efficiency is the best way of tackling fuel poverty and meeting our climate change objectives, so I am especially pleased that the Chancellor has increased the number of households that will benefit by 250,000 over the next two years.
	The people of Bishop Auckland are not focused on their own interests alone, however. During Fairtrade fortnight, many of them signed a petition calling for the Government to keep their promise to raise aid to 0.7 per cent. of GDP, so they will be pleased by the increase in development aid set out by the Chancellor.
	Opposition Members simply fail to understand the significance of the Government's successes and long-term strategy for the British economy. Since 1997 unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 41 per cent., and it has fallen by 11 per cent. in the country as a whole. Prudent fiscal and monetary frameworks have brought new stability to the British economy, and low inflation and interest rates enable businesses to plan and invest. That has allowed a steady programme of investment in public services. The Conservative party is committed to cutting public spending as a percentage of GDP, irrespective of need or circumstances. However, it will not tell voters which services it would cut. People need to know, because those public services not only improve our quality of life, but provide the skills and infrastructure for our long-term economic success.

Stewart Jackson: As I rise to challenge the received wisdom that we are living in a land of milk and honey, I confess that I am gatecrashing the Chancellor's glee club on the other side of the Chamber. I have unashamedly looked at the Budget through the prism of the way in which it will affect my constituents and my constituency. There is a chasm between the Chancellor's rhetoric and the situation in the real world for business and the public services, which I shall touch on later in my speech. Such rhetoric includes:
	"Britain is better placed than ever to be the global economy's success story"
	and
	"Preparing Britain for 21st Century—Challenge of Globalisation".
	I find it hard to reconcile those comments with a Chancellor who is imposing a social market model on this country and squandering the golden economic legacy that was left by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
	People have eschewed facts today, but facts are important, so let us consider the statistics. The tax take this year is £490 billion. Public expenditure is up by £207 billion since 1997. If one adds tax credits, as de facto welfare payments, into expenditure, 39 per cent. of our GDP is going on public expenditure. There will be £73 billion of public borrowing over the next two years, and tax will be up to 41 per cent. of GDP by 2011, or the equivalent of more than £7,000 a family.
	Businesses have been much lauded by the Chancellor, but business investment is at its lowest for 41 years in cash terms. This country is 5 per cent. worse off for capital equipment than Germany and the United States. Output per worker has gone up by just 1.6 per cent. in the past nine years, which is well behind the figure for the United States of America. We know that the Chancellor has had to downgrade his growth forecast constantly, but we should also remember that he has got the tax-take projections wrong in the last six financial years. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, growth per output since 1995 has, according to the university of Groningen, fallen behind France and Germany. We are something like fourth or fifth in the list of output and productivity in the G7.
	The Budget is also marked by a sleight of hand. We have heard nothing about the private finance initiative and the £60 billion that is off-balance-sheet debt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, we have heard nothing about the council tax bribe of £200—an urgent issue in 2005 before the general election, which is suddenly less urgent this year. We are constantly told by Labour Members that this is a Budget for the future that tackles the big issues, yet we have heard nothing about the Turner report or the structural reform of pensions. We have heard nothing except briefing in a turf war by the Treasury against Lord Turner and others.
	Let me give one simple example of how the Government have done nothing for the most needy people in our society. The Alzheimer's Society has written that carers save the Exchequer £57 billion, but there is nothing for them except a slap in the face. They have been ignored.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the policy of the Alzheimer's Society, and of the Liberal Democrats, to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care?

Stewart Jackson: A policy review is being undertaken by my party. We have a realistic chance of being elected to government, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
	There are other gimmicks, too. The planning gain tax will be organised on a regional basis. Does that mean that my constituents in Peterborough, where there is high growth and lots of house building, will suddenly find that tax going to Thurrock, Great Yarmouth or other Labour-voting areas?
	There was nothing about manufacturing in the Budget. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who has 30 years' experience in this place, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for talking about manufacturing. In my constituency, in a city famous for its railways and engineering, 4,500 people have lost their jobs. Employment is down by 28.7 per cent. Under this Labour Government, whose members constantly attacked the Conservatives throughout the 1980s for their record on manufacturing jobs, we have seen a reduction from 15 per cent. of the economy to 12 per cent. of the economy. That is not a record to be proud of.
	On the stamp duty threshold, even the Council of Mortgage Lenders has said that the policy will not work, because the threshold has not gone up in line with inflation and price rises. House prices in my constituency have risen by 100 per cent. in the past five years.
	Reference was made to the impact of tax credits on the poorest in our society. There still is a 60 per cent. marginal tax rate. If someone on the minimum wage has the tax credits taken away when he works, the basic rate of income tax and the tax credit removal, combined with national insurance contributions, will mean that he pays a 60 or 70 per cent. real marginal rate of taxation. That is not good enough.
	Yes, I pay tribute to the Government for at least trying to do something about child poverty, but the Chancellor should not forget the overall tax burden that falls on ordinary working families, not just the rich people in Chelsea tractors. I notice that the Chancellor paid tribute to the class war, keeping the "red in tooth and claw" leftist battalions on the Back Benches happy, but it was meaningless. It was student union gimmick politics—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).
	I shall concentrate on two areas. We hear a lot about health and how health spending is the great panacea that will solve the problem of the NHS and the infinite demand for health care, but there was not a word about health in the Budget. Health is now embarrassing. The Secretary of State for Health said just two months ago that the deficit was unlikely to be more than £200 million. That is typical of this Labour Government: they are only out by a factor of five, because by the end of the financial year the figure is more likely to be £1 billion.
	After nine years of the stewardship of the Chancellor, my constituency is losing 185 NHS jobs. Decent, hard-working and professional people are being thrown on the scrapheap. We have a cumulative budget deficit of £10 million over two years. Three wards are closing. That does not take account of the crisis in NHS dentistry in my city. Older people, children and young families are all being denied preventive dental treatment. We know that the Chancellor is keen on dentistry. He can get his teeth fixed at extremely high cost as part of his Trinny and Susannah-style makeover in preparation for moving next door to No. 10, but unfortunately my constituents cannot.
	It is no good talking about gimmicks, such as paying consultants only a 1 per cent. increase in salary. The Chancellor knows full well that there are only 34,000 consultants, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the increase that he is paying to other health care workers. Together with things like the working time directive, "Agenda for Change" and the botched GP and consultant contracts, which overran by £390 million, that has brought a structural deficit to a majority of trusts. We need not even mention manipulation of the national tariff. I, and probably other hon. Members, cannot remember the last time the NHS so mismanaged the national tariff that it had to withdraw it and bring it out again.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) will no doubt speak eloquently about the cuts in mental health services in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire. Those are the most destructive cuts. Many of the young people affected by the cuts are vulnerable and need help. Their services are being cut hugely.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a comparison of the year-on-year increases in NHS expenditure under the Government whom he loyally supported with the year-on-year increases that we have seen in the NHS?

Stewart Jackson: Delighted to; obviously the hon. Gentleman has not been reading Hansard. For every year of the Conservative Administration, between 1979 and 1997 we spent 64 per cent. above the rate of inflation, and for every week that we were in power we spent £1 million on a new capital project. He will have to ask a trickier trick question next time. [Interruption.] Those are the figures, if he wants to check them.
	On crime and policing, the Chancellor talks about police community support officers, but those are not fully trained policemen and women. They are decent civic-minded people who will do their best, but they are not policemen. We also hear about the regional forces that are being forced on our constituencies, allegedly costing more than £550 million, according to the Association of Police Authorities. The Government are going to fund that policy, possibly to the tune of £150 million, although no one wants it. It is a top-down approach. The police and local people are against it, but the Government have an arrogant disdain for local views and will go ahead with it anyway. As a result, we have to find £400 million from the council tax in my area and throughout the country—£400 million that is not being spent on crime fighting or tackling drugs, violent crime or antisocial behaviour, because it is being spent instead on new badges, new buildings and new management structures. That matters.
	Let me give the detection rates for my basic command unit, the northern division of Cambridgeshire. Some 53 per cent. of sexual offences are detected, which means that 47 per cent. are not solved; 15 per cent. of burglary cases are detected, so 85 per cent. are not solved; and 20 per cent. of vehicle thefts are detected, which means that 80 per cent. are not solved. That is after nine years of a Government who came to power saying that they were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an old man in a hurry. Last week's Budget was a "cones hotline" Budget. It had no vision, it was full of bombast and hyperbole, and it was empty and vacuous. I note that the Prime Minister, even 12,000 miles away, has got his betrayal in first, so the Chancellor may not move next door very quickly. The Budget is full of gimmicks, and although it does not have any price tags or time lines, it includes the much vaunted reannouncement of education spending. It fails the people of my constituency and, above all, it fails the country.

Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) for referring to me as a class warrior. If that means that I battle for hard-working people to be better off, and for public services to be improved substantially, I am proud. I congratulate the Chancellor on another effective Budget that will keep the economy stable while boosting public services. I very much appreciate the extra £585 million that will be made available to schools by 2007 in direct payments. I am keen, too, to thank the Chancellor for £100 million to facilitate safer neighbourhood teams in wards throughout the country. In my constituency, for example, Grove Green, Forest and Snaresbrook wards will have safer neighbourhood teams from the beginning of next month, so I thank him for reducing the wait they would otherwise have had.
	I am pleased that the Budget contains measures to tackle climate change, including an increase in line with inflation of the climate change levy from April 2007, the introduction of a new zero rate of vehicle excise duty for the small number of cars with the lowest carbon emissions, and a new top band for the most polluting new cars. It is incredible that the Conservative party, given its talk of consensus and its desire for green credentials, cannot embrace the levy, which is one of the biggest efforts in this country to tackle climate change. If the Conservatives think that a voluntary agreement would work, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. I urge them to get real and support the climate change levy.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is a sincere supporter of green taxation, which Liberal Democrats support, too. Does he not think that it is rather disappointing that green taxes in total have fallen from 3.6 per cent. of national income in 1999–2000 to just 3 per cent., which is even lower than it was when the Conservatives were in power?

Harry Cohen: The gist of my speech is the measures needed to tackle climate change. At least the Chancellor has moved in the right direction, given the measures that I have already mentioned. It would certainly be a retrograde step if the Conservatives had their way with a so-called voluntary agreement instead of the climate change levy.
	Aviation tax could be even more important than the levy. Figures from 2003 on carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion show that international aviation and marine bunkers were responsible for 3 per cent. of the world's total carbon emissions, or 223 million tonnes. That figure has since increased substantially. I shall return to aviation tax later, but I wish to deal with the taxation of oil companies, which is a complex issue and is not often raised unless the Chancellor refers to it or it is mentioned in the Treasury Committee. My perspective, however, is different. One of the Chancellor's greatest achievements was the introduction in 1997 of a windfall tax on oil companies that raised £5.2 billion, which was invested in the new deal—an employment strategy that put many young people into work. The new deal adopted four different approaches including, crucially, skills training. It transformed employment in this country and it was a great success.
	Oil prices have gone through the roof, as have oil company profits. I tabled a question to the Treasury asking the Chancellor to
	"assess the merits of introducing a windfall tax on oil company profits".
	A ministerial reply on 28 February said that in last year's pre-Budget report there was a package of changes to North sea oil taxation, but that
	"the Chancellor committed to no further increases in North sea oil taxation for the lifetime of this Parliament".—[Official Report, 28 February 2006; Vol. 443, c. 680W.]
	I thought that that was strange, given that there have been record increases in oil company profits. Indeed, although the new deal is still in place it has diminished, and we need to make a new effort on skills training, which is the biggest priority in the field of employment. The Government have delayed the introduction of a new approach called BoND—building on new deal, but another windfall tax could be utilised for that purpose.
	I undertook some research in the Library. As I said, the windfall tax produced £5.2 billion in 1997. The pre-Budget report shows that the Chancellor will receive £6.5 billion from the continental shelf oil companies in the North sea over the next three years. However, in the pre-Budget statement the Chancellor pointed out:
	"Our economy has had to withstand an oil price rise from around $25 to a current price of around $55, which is also close to the level of almost all future projections. Returns in the North sea"—
	this is a key point—
	"are now nearly 40 per cent. on capital, compared with ordinary returns of 13 per cent."
	There is therefore scope for more taxation on oil companies. Indeed, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee:
	"The oil taxation change is on the basis that we expect oil prices to remain higher than what has been the previous range. The previous range was $22 to $28 and, even if the oil price was higher, OPEC expected oil to go back to between $22 and $28. We are now in a situation where at the beginning of the year it was $40, at one point it went to $70; it is now back to about $55. Our assumption is about $55 over the course of the next year."
	There is therefore scope to increase oil company taxation by about another £1.5 billion quite comfortably over the lifetime of this Parliament. The windfall tax represented 10 per cent. of the taxes of those continental shelf companies. With the changes, we will get 8 per cent., but we could have got extra money from them. Their profits went up from £14 billion in 1997, which was a good year, to £21 billion per annum. We could have used the extra tax on their profits to improve skills training.
	Aviation kerosene is duty-exempt. The Prime Minister has said that it might be included in a new emissions trading scheme as a first step. That is welcome, but the Chicago convention makes it illegal to tax fuel for international flights. The crisis is great. On 2 March The Independent reported:
	"The boom in European air travel generated by cheap carriers is already threatening to wreck our attempts to bring climate change under control. Britons are forecast to take 101 million foreign trips by 2020",
	with
	"a corresponding increase in carbon emissions."
	The article continued:
	"A tax on airline fuel is the obvious solution. That fact that the airline industry has been allowed to operate for so long paying no tax on their fuel is a scandal."
	Oxfam has stated:
	"Although aviation currently accounts for only 3.5 per cent. of total greenhouse gas emissions, it is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions; because aviation also has the highest growth rate as a mode of transport, emissions from air travel are projected to increase five-fold by 2050."

Charles Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one good way of reducing emissions in the long term would be to stop building additional runways for budget airlines?

Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Government policy must deal with aviation in the round.
	According to the Library,
	"Domestic aviation (to and from UK airports only) accounts for 0.4 per cent. of UK emissions. Only domestic aviation is included in target figures but if international aviation were to be included the figure would rise to 5.7 per cent. of UK emissions",
	and
	"one fifth of all international passengers are travelling to or from a UK airport."

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has just defeated his own case. If the United Kingdom imposed an aviation duty unilaterally, that would affect only domestic flights. Airlines would get their fuel from other countries. How would he propose to deal with that?

Harry Cohen: As I pointed out, we are in a position of leverage because such a high proportion of airlines use the UK. We would be a big player in that argument.
	The Government will not say how much would be raised by an aviation tax, but in an answer in 2003 they stated that introducing duty at the ultra low sulphur diesel rate would raise £5.8 billion and at the heavy diesel duty rate, £6.6 billion, so in addition to the environmental effects the Exchequer could raise a lot of money by that means.
	A number of steps should be taken. First, we should threaten to leave the Chicago convention and use that as leverage to renegotiate it. It is ridiculous that there is a convention preventing taxation on international flights. We should press for renegotiation. Secondly, the Budget refers to the continental shelf oil companies and the taxation regime is directed at them, but all oil companies are making huge profits on all their activities. An excess profits tax could be imposed on them without the petrol price having to be raised. If we do nothing with regard to aviation, we should do more in respect of individual travellers, based on the price of a ticket so that the rich pay more. There should be more tax on cheap tickets as well.
	Finally, there are still great emissions and energy wastage from buildings—in London, for example, as much as from cars. The Government need to address that in their taxation regime. We need to tackle climate change and promote environmental protection. The Budget has made a start, but we need to do more.

Martin Horwood: The Budget claimed to be a Budget for education and a green Budget, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out, there were disgraceful omissions from the Budget in those respects and also in respect of the NHS. I shall take each of those in turn.
	Education takes many forms, including the learning of IT skills. I am pleased that in the debate many hon. Members have mentioned the home computing initiative. There is a long history of using computers in my family and my constituency. My father, Don Horwood, helped to build the very first programmable digital computer, Colossus, during the 1940s at Bletchley Park. Bletchley Park became GCHQ and moved ultimately to Cheltenham, so there is a good connection.
	Many families are excluded from the IT revolution that took place during my father's lifetime, sometimes because of their low incomes and sometimes simply because of inexperience in IT. The home computing initiative was a valuable programme not only because it gave access to IT equipment, but because it improved the employment prospects of those on low incomes and their families, and increased the overall set of IT skills of the nation, thereby increasing our productivity—another Budget theme.
	It is disgraceful that the home computing initiative was abolished in the Budget. That was not flagged up in the Budget statement, of course, but was buried in the small print. The home computing industry was not consulted or informed beforehand, despite the existence of an industry body, the home computing industry alliance. I have had angry e-mails from constituents who are in the industry and who are appalled that that was done at such short notice and in such a sneaky back-door way. It is a very unfortunate cancellation of a valuable scheme.
	Support for the NHS has been identified by other hon. Members as a subject that was not mentioned in the Budget speech. It is an outrage that it did not rate even a mention at a time when the NHS is in financial crisis. I do not represent one of those legendary 6 per cent. of areas that are in deep financial crisis. I speak for an area represented by Cheltenham and Tewkesbury primary care trust, which, as my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) knows, has been in financial balance. It is a three-star primary care trust. We have an acute trust, Gloucestershire Hospitals Trust, which is a relatively low cost provider of services, doing exactly as the Government wanted it to do. We even have a mental health partnership trust, which is a three-star trust hoping to apply to be one of the first partnership trusts to gain the much-vaunted foundation status. That is precisely the kind of area that should not be in crisis.
	Why, in that case, was it announced today that Battledown children's ward in my constituency will close as a 24-hour in-patient facility, despite pledges from all three primary care trusts and the acute trust last year that it would stay open? Why will St. Paul's maternity wing close in due course, and why will the Delancey rehabilitation hospital probably close? Why are adult mental health services to be rationalised, and a range of other services that were provided in both Cheltenham and Gloucester to be provided in only one place? I suspect that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cotswold, will be considering community hospitals and local NHS services in his constituency with some trepidation given the overall package.
	Why has that devastating news been delivered to the people of Cheltenham today? The answer is that the Department of Health got its sums wrong. Initiative after initiative, contract after contract and target after target have been inadequately funded by the Department of Health. The result has been the requirement for some £29 million of savings across the three PCTs in Gloucestershire and £10 million lost to Gloucester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, even if it stands still on its current activity. That is an unacceptable attack on front-line services, and I agree with my hon. Friends that it could cost lives.
	I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to leave the debate to meet the Secretary of State for Health tonight. I asked her why a PCT that is in balance and that has a low-cost acute trust provider is facing such cuts. She said, "We can't take funds other than from the NHS to bail out the overspending PCTs." "Can't"? The Chancellor keeps telling us that he has 10 years' experience. Why "can't" the political will be found to protect services, even in the areas of the NHS that have been in balance and that have done everything that the Government have asked of them? Furthermore, those events are taking place while the threat of pandemic flu hangs over the NHS—this is the very time when we should be looking at increasing capacity in the NHS, not cutting it.
	Finally, the Chancellor claims to have produced a green Budget, but it is a very pale green. For all the Government's protestations, the simple fact remains that CO 2 emissions are going up, not down. Today's conveniently delayed climate change review—it is a shame that there was not enough time to produce it just before the Budget speech—makes it clear that the climate change levy has been frozen since its creation and that it will be increased only in line with inflation from 2007. Let us hope that climate change itself proceeds only at the rate of inflation with six-year pauses, although that is unlikely because, as the evidence shows, while the Government are slowing down, climate change is speeding up.
	It is also disappointing that the Chancellor has only partially implemented Liberal Democrat policy by placing higher vehicle excise duty on the most gas-guzzling vehicles and introducing a zero rate for those vehicles that are the lowest consumers. However, the rate is feeble, and, as Conservative Members have pointed out, there is no protection for rural farmers who genuinely need such vehicles. Instead, the owner of a Porsche Cayenne, which the Environmental Transport Association lists as one of the worst offenders and which costs between £30,000 and £50,000, now faces an extra bill per annum of £30, which is rather less than the cost of one Porsche Cayenne windscreen wiper.
	At this point in my speech, I must declare an interest because, like the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), I have got the builders in to plan an extension to my house. I plan to install a mini-wind turbine, a combined heat and power boiler and solar panels, but I was surprised to discover that some of the grants that I was hoping to take advantage of under the clear skies programme seem to have run out. There is no provision in the Budget, not even in the small print, on householder microgeneration. On an MP's salary, I may be able to afford to go ahead, but many others will not. Earlier in the debate, the Minister gave me a disingenuous answer on that point, because, although he discussed supporting microgeneration for the Government's own buildings, he  made no firm commitment on householder microgeneration. Microgeneration has huge potential to reduce emissions and fuel poverty, to lower fuel bills for a wide section of the population and to more than fill the gap left by the nuclear industry were we to decide—rightly—to decommission it completely.
	The truth is that the Budget has failed to support education and productivity, to save the NHS from financial crisis and to protect the environment. Unless the Chancellor fails with his next job application, it will go down as his greatest missed opportunity.

Joan Walley: The contributions to tonight's debate have been detailed and far ranging, and they show the in-depth interest and attention that all hon. Members pay to every single aspect of the Budget. So many themes have come out of the debate, but I want to concentrate on my concern about the Budget.
	I want to make a plea to the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Department of Trade and Industry to deliver a cross-cutting Budget. We should examine how the different measures in the Budget can be joined up across Departments and linked to partners on the ground. We have heard so much about issues such as social justice and child poverty, but we need the capacity on the ground to make the measures in the Budget a reality. That is my plea to Ministers tonight.
	It is a privilege to take part in this debate. This is my right hon. Friend's 10th Budget and many other hon. Members have commented about how the public finances are now on a level playing field. It is so important to take that forward. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee which has examined the pre-Budget report and other Budgets for their green capacity. The Committee's reports always seem to conclude that the Government should do more, but that is true no matter how much Governments do. However, we should give the Government credit for the real step change in the Budget, especially in the chapter on protecting the environment.
	I welcome the progress on environmental issues. As the climate change review published today shows, there is still so much more that could be done. It is up to all of  us to work collaboratively, whether through environmental improvements to our own homes, informing our constituents or getting our local authorities to adopt a leadership role on environmental issues. The Budget provides the foundations for real progress on environmental issues, not least in respect of microgeneration, at work, in schools and in all the public finance undertakings.
	The Environmental Audit Committee is cross-cutting in looking at all Departments, and I want to look at some of the Budget measures in the same way, especially those that will have a real impact on my constituency. I hope that Ministers will work with north Staffordshire MPs to ensure a joined-up approach from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of theDeputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury. Unless we have that commitment, we will be unable to deliver services in north Staffordshire as we should.
	I was interested in the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) about the loss of manufacturing jobs. I wish to flag up our heartlands, especially north Staffordshire, where heavy industry is bearing the brunt of the globalisation that many other hon. Members have mentioned. It is vital that we do everything in our power to create new jobs, to support those who have already lost their jobs and to retrain and give new skills to those in low-paid jobs and who wish to move on. It is important that the review of Advantage West Midlands and the other regional development agencies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry mentioned earlier looks at what manufacturing needs. We have the wonderful example of the Ceramic Industry Forum, which is looking in an innovative way at what needs to be done. The education maintenance allowance, which was piloted in Stoke-on-Trent, is another wonderful example, and it has now been rolled out across the country. I hope that other schemes can be piloted in Stoke-on-Trent and used to maximum effect across the country.
	This is a Budget for the regeneration of the UK's towns and cities. I declare an interest because my constituency includes Burslem, the mother town of the Potteries. The £65.5 million announced this week by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for Renew North Staffordshire will give us unprecedented levels of investment in housing, and I hope that it will unlock many different opportunities for jobs and retraining. It will give us an opportunity to have sustainable methods of construction and to implement on the ground the warm homes policy that was again mentioned in this Budget. If the Government take a cross-cutting approach, this will all add up to a complete transformation of homes and jobs in our area.
	I am pleased that the Lyons review was mentioned in paragraph 6.15 of the Budget. Some 7,800 jobs of the 20,000 proposed have already been moved out of London and the south-east, so there are still 12,000 to go. We have a site in north Staffordshire that could be used for relocation purposes under the Lyons review. It is a stone's throw away from the priority housing market renewal area, which would link up to Burslem. If the Government have the will, we can make it happen on the ground. The job losses that we face in north Staffordshire could give rise to opportunities for the innovative relocation of public services that would allow us to be a true engine of growth. That is the agenda that north Staffordshire wishes to convey to Ministers.
	We have a wonderful resource centre that was originally launched by the Ceramic and Allied Trades union—now Unity. It has a proud record of upskilling and retraining the work force in north Staffordshire, and has had European funding. The education maintenance allowance offers the Government a model for ways of dealing with those in the traditional manufacturing areas who are losing jobs. They need only look at this gem to see how such projects can be rolled out still further.
	It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions to know that I cannot miss this opportunity to lobby yet again on the LEGI—local enterprise growth initiative—fund, phase 2 of which is on offer under this year's Budget. I say categorically to my right hon. Friend that we need that funding for north Staffordshire. If we need extra assistance and capacity in building a project that will meet the criteria, I ask for an assurance that the Government will work with us to ensure that it will be in place as soon as phase 2 gets under way.
	I wish briefly to refer to the Budget information on private finance initiatives—"PFI: strengthening long-term partnerships". We need firm commitments from the Government about the way forward for the public services. Some changes to health service funding are directly affecting the deficits that are occurring in primary care trusts and health trusts around the country. In north Staffordshire, we have a private finance initiative that is nearing the stage of closure. I acknowledge all the welcome investment in research and development in the health service and all the extra resources that the Government are putting in, but my plea is for Ministers to look closely at box 6.1 in the PFI information. I hope that, in the winding-up speech, the Chief Secretary can assure north Staffordshire Members that we can have some certainty about the PFI for the new hospital.
	We currently have two hospital sites, which means all sorts of extra costs that make it difficult to deal with the current position and the huge scale of job losses. Above all, we need certainty and joined-up thinking from the Treasury and the health service that the PFI can go ahead.

Nick Hurd: I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests and place on record my great pleasure at following the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, who spoke with her characteristic sincerity and commitment to her constituents.
	I do not know about other new Members, but I was thoroughly looking forward to my first Budget. After all, they used to mean something. However, now I am not so sure. With the big decisions increasingly taken elsewhere, the annual event appears reduced to the theatre of gesture politics. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) observed, it is increasingly thin gruel, as last week showed.
	As a new Member, I applied three tests to the Budget. First, is it relevant to my constituents? Secondly, does it recognise what is needed to shore up the competitiveness of the British economy in a changing world? I speak as someone who has experienced trying to run a business in Brazil, one of the emerging giants that is set to change the global economy. Thirdly, does the Budget demonstrate that the Treasury is showing sufficient urgency in the face of climate change? I speak as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which placed on record only last week our concern about the possibility of institutional inertia in the Treasury in the face of the scientific evidence.
	On the first test, there are things to welcome, including more investment in reassurance policing, increased focus on youth services and increased investment in child care. There are local concerns about the long-term funding behind that package, but there are things to welcome. However, they are overwhelmed by two key omissions.
	First, there is bafflement in the local community at the silence about the national health service. Our local context is that we have two, much-admired hospitals, which have performed extraordinary feats at the cutting edge of cardiac care and cancer treatment. They are Harefield hospital and Mount Vernon hospital. Both face genuine uncertainty about their long-term future against the background of an overriding strategic imperative to cut beds in north-west London. Our primary care trust has a deficit of £30 million and the community is braced for announcements about real labour cuts that will cut deep into the local health community. Hillingdon residents are gradually realising that they can no longer rely on NHS dentistry, with the news that seven out of 10 Ruislip dentists intend to quit the NHS.
	Financial crisis in the NHS underlies that theme, at a time of unprecedented investment. My constituents ask where the money has gone, who is responsible for the mess, who will sort it out and how that will be done. Was it unreasonable of them to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man with his hands on the levers of power, who expects to become Prime Minister, to explain at the Dispatch Box how the problems will be solved? He was quick to take the credit but reluctant to step up to the plate when the going gets tough. It is a test of leadership for a man who aspires to be Prime Minister, and he failed it.
	A second concern is a failure to tackle a growing sense of insecurity in the community, especially among elderly people. Anxiety about the value of pensions is wrapped up in that but it is linked with concern about the rising costs of living, especially those associated with people's houses. Much has been made of the council tax, which is biting deeply, but rising utility bills and the costs of energy in the home are being talked about more loudly. Linked to that is confusion about the signals that the Government send about the need to set aside money for long-term savings. There is no more guilty agent of confusion in that mess than the Government's system of pension credit.
	I am genuinely surprised at the Government's complacency in the face of the collapse of the savings ratio. I have even heard Treasury Ministers argue that that is a symptom of economic success. My concern arose when I visited the local headquarters of one of our main high street banks to find out what consumer attitudes were to pensions and savings products, and I was told, quite calmly, "We no longer bother to sell them. The public don't want them. They aren't interested, and we don't make any money out of selling them." That is where we have got to. That is the culture, the language and the atmosphere around savings in this country, and I would suggest that it represents a structural problem in the economy that requires more attention than simply chucking some money into child trust funds, however welcome that might be. It is in the Budget's failure to address the two key concerns of health and attitudes towards saving that it fails the first test of relevance to the concerns of my constituents.
	The second test is to determine whether the Budget recognises what is needed to shore up the competitiveness of the British economy. It is generally accepted that that competitiveness has in the past been based on low levels of tax and flexible labour markets. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the management of the economy is now resulting in significant risks being taken with those advantages, the effects of which we might have to live with for some time.
	Other speakers have been more eloquent than I can be in pointing out the fault lines that are becoming increasingly evident: in terms of growth, we are at the bottom of the EU pack; our productivity growth rates are at their lowest levels since 1990; and our business investment is down to 9 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest factor in the competitiveness of the economy is the exchange rate? Given that we are running an enormous trade deficit at the moment, and that the exchange rate has not depreciated, would that not appear to be a reflection of international confidence in our economy?

Nick Hurd: I accept that exchange rates are a factor in the competitiveness of an economy, but I would suggest that the more important factors are the levels of taxation and the flexibility of the labour markets. That has been proven over time.
	When the hon. Gentleman intervened on me, I was going through a checklist of the fault lines in the economy. We must recognise the indisputable fact that we are now living with the highest burden of taxation for 20 years. It is not only the scale of the taxation but its incredible complexity that concerns my constituents. I understand—my Front-Bench colleagues may correct me on this—that some 3,500 pages have been added to the Yellow Book since 1997, which is the clearest possible evidence of the instinct to tinker and to add to complexity. The bottom line is that, when I hear the Chancellor speak, I do not believe that I am listening to someone with any real understanding of what it is like to run a business or to take risks in the pursuit of prosperity and the creation of wealth. That is also the growing view of businesses in my constituency. Another test failed.
	The third test involves examining the sense of urgency, and the sense of ambition, shown by the Treasury in the face of climate change risk. This ought not to be in doubt, because I do not think that anyone doubts the Chancellor's sincerity in his mission to reduce poverty in Africa. He must therefore be aware that the biggest risk to that agenda will be the impact of climate change on the poorer regions of this earth. As I have said, the Environmental Audit Committee is concerned about the institutional inertia and lack of momentum at the Treasury, particularly in recent years.
	The Budget has not won the Chancellor any new friends among the green movement. Friends of the Earth called it "utterly inadequate", adding that its measures would
	"collectively only make a small impact on emissions".
	I happen to think that that judgment might be a little harsh, but I have no doubt that we are right to be concerned about the Treasury's lack of urgency and momentum, set against the backdrop of rising carbon emissions in this country.
	Climate change presents an immense challenge, and the attitude of the British Government is enormously important, not least in regard to the international process that is key to finding a solution. The problem with that incredibly complex process is that it is going too slowly, and that it is being held back by concerns about the cost of mitigating climate change. In order to accelerate that dialogue, progress and momentum, we need proof that we can grow our economy and reduce carbon emissions at the same time—that we can green and grow. That is the key for harnessing support for these measures in the developing world.
	Britain continues to have an historic opportunity to take the lead in making that case, but we need the will to accelerate the technology to deliver a sustainable low-carbon future. A modern, forward-looking, digital Government would be alive to the prospect of being in the vanguard of economic opportunity. They would recognise that the twin concerns of energy security—now very real—and the trend of fossil fuel prices reinforce that imperative. That requires real leadership and clear policy making to send the long-term signals that business men and our fellow citizens need.

Des Browne: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has an extensive knowledge, nodoubt developed from his Select Committee membership. Given the demonstrative leadership role that he wishes the Government to take, can he indicate to the House how he personally will be voting tonight in relation to the revalorisation of the climate change levy?

Nick Hurd: Personally, I am a supporter of the revalorisation of the climate change levy—

George Osborne: The answer is no.

Nick Hurd: I know what the answer is. I happen to believe that the climate change levy has played a role. The Government are deluding themselves, however, if they think that that is the main piece on the chessboard and the bellwether with regard to climate change.
	In the context of real leadership and clear policy making, we need long-term signals. Instead, we get muddled reviews—the climate change review announced today, an energy review over the next few months and, perhaps most importantly, the Stern review on the economics of climate change at the end of the year. We get incompetent management of key processes such as the definition of the national allocation plan in the first phase of the European emissions trading system. We get tolerance of inefficient taxation such as air passenger duty and a drift from the impressive momentum that the Government showed in terms of developing environmental taxation in their first Parliament between 1997 and 2001. All that drift, muddle and incompetence has served to undermine the credibility of the Government, who are increasingly seen as being good at words but having real problems, and struggling, with delivery. The test is not words but action. To be fair, the test is not the Budget but the reaction of the Treasury to the Stern review later in the year, which will set out what is possible for a brave Government prepared to show real leadership.
	The second test is the inevitable row over the national allocation plan for the second phase of the EU emissions trading system and the age-old dialogue between the priority given to sustainability and the priority given to the arguments of competitiveness. That will tell us the reality of this Chancellor and his aspiration and commitment to preserving and enhancing our natural resources—the natural capital, which is an indispensable pillar of our global system of capitalism, and which we can no longer take for granted. Whether he passes that test or not, the Chancellor and I are at least agreed on one thing—we both hope that last week's Budget was his last.

Charles Walker: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the first Budget debate that I have attended. I hope that I do not have to listen to 10 more Budgets from the Chancellor, but I listened closely to the one that he gave, I think, last week.
	I was going to bring my worst instincts to the Chamber and talk about the fact that there was nothing in the Budget on pensions, as many of my constituents live in fear of their future—both those who are saving for retirement and those currently in retirement. There was nothing on council tax—a hidden stealth tax that goes up year on year, causing great distress to young and old alike in my constituency. I was going to talk about the problems with transport funding and the fact that my constituents are packed on to trains early in the morning on the One railway franchise as the Treasury pockets £50 million a year in franchise fees and fails to invest that money on the network. But I say, "Get behind me Satan," because I want to be positive this evening, on issues that matter to everyone in the House, including the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband).
	I was absolutely delighted to hear the emphasis placed on education in the Budget. I have had the great privilege of visiting my primary and secondary schools in Hoddesdon, Cheshunt, Broxbourne, Waltham Cross and Northaw. It is the head teachers who make a difference in those schools. We are lucky and blessed to have excellent head teachers in my constituency. They work extremely hard for a great deal less money than I earn, put in a huge number of hours and are a credit to their schools and the community that they serve. On that point, I welcome the additional funding going directly to head teachers to spend on the things that really matter to them—IT, books and additional teaching resources. That money is very welcome, and I have to say that things have improved since Labour came to power nine years ago. Admittedly they should have improved, as Labour has spent a lot of money. When I visit my schools I see whiteboards and projectors, all of which have added to the educational experience of young people in my constituency. Nevertheless, that has created problems in itself, although I know that the budget was not there to deal with those problems. People are moving out of north London and gangs are regularly attacking our schools, stealing much of the equipment and creating a very hostile environment for young people. Perhaps that is happening in other Members' schools, and perhaps we could consider securing additional funds somewhere down the line to improve school security and the environment in which young people are educated.
	One thing that I have noticed when touring my constituency—

Des Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Walker: I will happily give way.

Des Browne: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gets around to touring his constituency. May I allow him an  opportunity to welcome comprehensively the Chancellor's announcements of further investment in his constituency? Given his recognition of the need for further investment in the security of our communities, I am sure that he will wish to add a welcome for the investment in community support officers that the Chancellor also announced.

Charles Walker: Of course I welcome additional investment in my constituency, if indeed it turns up. It is interesting that the Chief Secretary mentioned community support officers. I am working with a consortium of schools in my constituency, considering the possibility of part-funding CSOs to provide evening cover so that people who congregate around schools, wishing them harm and causing vandalism, can be moved on. I welcome any additional resources that we can find to finance community support officers.
	As I was saying, one thing I have noticed is that the greatest difference between the private and public education sectors is class size. I believe that many of our public schools now have extremely good IT equipment and teaching facilities, but class size seems to be one of the key determinants of performance. I would welcome any measures introduced by the Government—or by our Government, when we win the next general election—that reduced class sizes and gave children from some of the most deprived parts of my constituency an even greater chance of achieving success. I do not believe that that wish is party political; I believe that it is shared by all the parties. We want the very best for our young people.
	Having got that off my chest, however, I would like to be party political. Like many other Members—again, across the Chamber—I was extremely disappointed that the health service did not get a mention in the Chancellor's Budget statement. We have huge funding shortfalls in Hertfordshire, caused by and large by Government mismanagement. There is, for instance, the mismanagement of GP and consultant contracts, as a result of which too much money has been given in return for too little. Of course I want GPs and consultants to be paid properly, but the money should have been based on an increase in output and productivity.
	What concerns me about Labour Members is all the chest-beating about the fact that they are spending more money. They are like the great apes that leap in, bang the ground and bang their chests. It is not about spending more money; it is about a return on investment. It is about output exceeding input. On that score, the Government have some work to do. Yes, they are spending more money, but are they securing a proper return on their investment for taxpayers across the country and in my constituency?
	In the health service, we face significant front-line cuts throughout my constituency and across Hertfordshire. As I have said, we have huge deficits in our hospitals, but what concerns me most are the cuts in mental health services that affect the most vulnerable people in my community.
	A health care professional asked me, "Why are you showing so much interest in mental health? As you'll find out, Charles, there are no votes in mental health." That is completely wrong, and I am sure that most hon. Members think so, too. Of course, I want outcomes for breast cancer and heart disease to improve, but people with mental health problems need a strong voice as well, and it is incumbent on hon. Members to give them that voice. I urge the Chief Secretary to look at NHS funding. I appreciate that there is no bottomless pit, but the £800 million shortfall is damaging the most vulnerable people in our society. They are not responsible for the problem, but they will pay the price. That causes me great concern.
	So I come to a solution. May we perhaps consider clawing back some of the money that we will give to the European Union in the years ahead? I understand that we will make additional contributions to fund the lifestyle of French farmers. I love France; I love French markets, but given the fact that our health service is in financial crisis, is it really justifiable to give more money to the EU and to some of the richest countries in Europe? That is a hard sell in my constituency, and I imagine that it might be quite a hard sell in other hon. Member's constituencies. So thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this canter through the sunlit uplands of Broxbourne. I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope that I have not upset too many people.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) has given us a real insight into his constituency, and the idea that lots of people are running away from those schools with whiteboards under their arms is a fantastic one to envisage.

Charles Walker: It is a very serious problem. My children's school has been hit twice in three weeks. Almost a dozen schools in my constituency have been raided repeatedly and their IT equipment has been taken, and it does the hon. Gentleman no service to make light of that in the debate.

Phil Willis: I feel utterly chastised, and I apologise.
	I left the debate earlier this evening to attend a reception with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and Lord Crathorne. We are working with a group of young people who are blind. Most of them are also deaf, and many of them also have physical impairments. Returning to Budget debates should make us recognise the fact that the reality of what we are debating is an attempt to make people's lives better in our communities, wherever they are. I pay tribute to the Economic Secretary, who is sitting next to the Chief Secretary, for the support that he gave to Henshaw's college when he was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills. I thank him for delivering on a promise that the Government made to put about £2 million into that project, and I do so with great sincerity.
	I should like to concentrate my brief remarks on science. This was a Budget for science. Whatever we might think of other bits of the Budget, science came out of it very well indeed. The additional supply of science teachers, the offering of pure sciences to more young people, new support for carbon capture and storage, replacing the research assessment exercise system and extending R and D tax credits were all things that I support, and my Committee—the Science and Technology Committee—was very supportive of those things, too.
	This was a somewhat unusual Budget. I, for one, was surprised by the extent of the changes in the Budget, and the associated "Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: next steps" reads more like a science White Paper than a Budget document. I do not think that I was the only person who was surprised by the announcements. They came as news, for instance, to organisations that will be affected by them. It appears that the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the Medical Research Council and even some parts of the Office of Science and Technology were informed of the changes announced in the Budget only the day before. It seems that the Chancellor cannot wait to put his plans for science and technology into action and that he has even taken responsibility for reorganising the research councils. So if the Chancellor is now running science policy, I wonder what the Minister for Science and Innovation and the Office of Science and Technology have left to do.
	However, the real issue behind some of the changes announced in the Budget is: who in the Government is monitoring the UK's science capacity, and where and how? In the past couple of weeks, we have been debating the closure of the chemistry department at the university of Sussex and the loss in the past two years of four major chemistry departments, which produced the very chemistry graduates who will be among the 3,000 such teachers in our schools in a few years' time. I wonder who is monitoring the situation. It certainly is not the Higher Education Funding Council, which told my Committee last night that it had absolutely no plans to intervene in what is clearly a dire situation.
	We recognise the huge investment that has been made in science—the £10 billion provided in this comprehensive spending review is massive additional funding—but although the money is going in, there remains a Luddite approach to many of our world-class science facilities. The Silsoe research institute, which has world-class expertise in agricultural engineering, and the Hannah research institute, which deals with nutrition, will close this Friday. Four Centre for Ecology and Hydrology institutions will close next year, at a time when environmental science should be at the heart of our agenda, instead of being trimmed at the margins. In the past 10 years, one in three science posts in publicly funded institutions have gone. I hope that the Minister will explain in his wind-up who is doing the planning for science. Who is pulling it all together and looking at a strategic science base for the UK?
	I do not dispute the right of research councils to say that we do not need a particular element of science in this or that institute; nor do I question the fact that at times institutes will have to close. What I do question is the complete lack of a science plan outlining the capacity that we need in the coming years.
	The replacement of the RAE system was a welcome announcement. It was handled well and I compliment the Government not only on getting rid, eventually, of the RAE system, but on introducing the new metric system and running the two systems side by side. However, what our universities do not want—I hope that the Minister will take this point on board—is to be running a full RAE system in 2008 and a full new metric system at the same time. Frankly, that would simply undermine much of what has to be done.
	The really interesting announcement in the Budget was the reorganisation of research institutes. We Liberal Democrats and my Committee are pleased that the wealth of information in the NHS database will be used for research purposes, but where did the announcement on combining the Medical Research Council and the NHS database come from? Who will lead the organisation? Will it be Sir Colin Blakemore, or somebody brought in through open competition? What resources will the organisation have? The Chancellor mentioned a figure of approximately £1 billion, but the amount spent on the MRC and on the NHS database combined comes to £1.3 billion. So does this constitute a cut in medical research funding? It would be interesting to have an answer to that.
	Finally, will the Minister say what is happening with the restructuring of this country's eight research councils? It seems that the Treasury is doing something that nobody else knows about. It is proposing that the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council surrender its grant-giving duties to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and that it then merge its facilities with the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, creating a new "large facilities council". Whatever the proposal's merits—I accept that there are some—surely Research Councils UK should be doing such planning, not the Chancellor sat in the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on this issue.
	Overall, however, this is a Budget for science that is to be welcomed, and it certainly will be appreciated in the science community.

Iris Robinson: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the whole debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; as you know, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee met this afternoon at 4.30.
	In the limited time available, it is difficult to highlight the most important aspects of the speech I had prepared. Many thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in my constituency, but I want to flag up the serious situation of the multimillion pound fishing industry.
	Northern Ireland fishermen have been told that they will receive no moneys for the 11-week closure of fishing in the Irish sea, pursuant to the cod recovery scheme, which is now in its seventh year and runs from mid-February until the end of April. As the House will appreciate, that announcement caused much alarm to fishermen, processors and their families and to local communities that rely on the fishing industry. Council regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 governs the payment of compensation, and aid was paid under it in 2004 and 2005.
	This year, we pressed for the renewal of aid to fishermen in Northern Ireland, and on 31 January 2006 my colleague Jim Allister, MEP, received from the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and rural development a letter indicating that payments beyond two years were prohibited by EU regulation. My colleague disputed that and invited Commissioner Borg to give the Commission's view about the regulation. On 8 March 2006, Dr. Borg wrote to our MEP saying that although the regulation capped compensation at a cumulative total of 12 months, in Northern Ireland payments had been made only for five months so seven months' compensation was still payable by the national Government, and could be spread over several years. Will the Government consider the modest request that £800,000 be allocated to allow suffering Northern Ireland fishermen to survive?
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred to the home computer initiative. I received a letter from a constituent, Philip Norton of Ballygowan, who said:
	"By scrapping the Home Computing Initiative—a tax incentive introduced in 1999 and further clarified and enhanced in 2003 to enable greater take-up of PCs in the home—the Chancellor has removed one of the most popular and successful initiatives he has created in his time in power, and one that is still running in several countries throughout Europe."
	He pointed out that only 10 days were left to sort out the matter, and he would appreciate it if the decision could be reconsidered and, if possible, reversed, as it will have a huge impact throughout the United Kingdom.
	I welcome the planned reduction in the number of health trusts and boards in Northern Ireland under the public administration review. I hope that will result in the release of moneys that can be ploughed into front-line services. I have some real concerns about whether the changes can be rolled out without too much upheaval for staff and patients, but time alone will tell.
	For a change, I want to record my delight about recent announcements about additional moneys for Herceptin for women suffering from breast cancer and the additional £2 million for beta interferon for multiple sclerosis sufferers, to end the postcode lottery among the Province's health boards. The latest announcement about anti-TNF drugs is a life-saving decision for many sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis, which is a crippling disease. We need ring-fenced funding for those drugs, so that no one who needs them loses out in future. In the past, people have been denied them simply because of where they happened to live.
	With nine other MPs from across the UK, I had the pleasure of participating in a meeting with rheumatoid arthritis sufferers to help to compile a book highlighting their experiences with and without anti-TNF drugs. I met a young woman, Hazel Mark, who started showing symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at the age of 11. She is now in her late 20s or early 30s and has been onRemicade for approximately one year. The transformation in her life has been miraculous. The things that we all take for granted, such as opening cans, lifting a baby and just being able to get out of bed, are now possible for Hazel. On behalf of people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, I thank Ministers for the welcome news about anti-TNF drugs.
	I also want to place on record my thanks for the additional £14.6 million, which the Minister for social development in Northern Ireland has made available for community funding. I had a meeting with him yesterday in my constituency. The news is welcome to the various women's groups throughout Northern Ireland, which will now be in a position, at last, to try to draw down that much-needed funding. The women's centres have been the sticking plaster of local communities throughout the years of the troubles. They do an amazing job in relation to education, preparing women to go back into the workplace, providing crèche facilities and so on. I pay particular tribute to the Ballybeen women's centre, which has done such sterling work over 20-odd years. I am glad that it will not have to go cap in hand looking for funding from various sources, but can avail itself of that much needed money to secure the work that it does in my constituency and throughout the Province.

Sammy Wilson: Since there appear to be no more Labour Back Benchers waiting to speak—indeed, the Chancellor has not been praised for the past half an hour or so—I suppose that I should start by giving some praise to the Chancellor for the work that has been done over the years. It would be churlish not to say that, in Northern Ireland, we now have the lowest rate of unemployment and are the fourth fastest growing region in the United Kingdom, and that there have been economic successes. I am not looking for a job, so I can say that without anybody saying that I have an ulterior motive.
	I fear, however, that the tightening that is hidden behind the Budget will affect that situation. Already we see the fiscal grip tightening on Northern Ireland. Regional rates have gone up, water charges are to be introduced and we are to have a charge for policing. Much of the economic success will be badly affected by the hidden tightening in the Budget. The Budget shows that the Government will face difficulties in the years ahead.
	Let us consider the meaning of the Budget for the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps the clue was in the give-away line when the Chancellor compared himself to Nicholas Vansittart. He may well have been looking back longingly to the days when that Chancellor was able to get 39 resolutions through without any opposition. There were no Back-Bench revolts and there was nobody on the other side opposing the resolutions. On the other hand, Nicholas Vansittart was known for increasing the tax burden, complicated financial schemes for hiding the size of the national debt, paying considerable attention to affecting supposed economies and, of course, privatising naval and military pensions. Perhaps that is the real picture that we get from the Budget and the real picture of the current Chancellor.
	I want to make three brief observations. Amid the financial machine-gun effect, with £100 million here, £20 million elsewhere, £15 million for microgeneration of energy, new boards for technology, and enterprise networks—those things will be rolled out—there are a number of worrying messages in the Budget.
	The first message is that when the Chancellor says that he gives, it does not necessarily mean that we receive. He announced that there will be more direct payments to schools, with the money for primary schools going up by £13,000 a school and money for secondary schools increasing from £98,000 to £152,000. He said that the same increases would be announced for schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but when the Secretary of State made the announcement for Northern Ireland, we found that a sum of £16 million would be spread among nearly 1,000 schools, but that does not work out at £13,000 a primary school and £54,000 a secondary school. I suspect that there is a lot of spin in the Budget and many initiatives that are simply regurgitations of money that has already been spent, and I could give further examples of that.
	Secondly, more money does not mean better services. I heard Labour Members taunting Opposition Members who wanted tax cuts by asking how they could have tax cuts without cutting services. The fact of the matter is that since the Government came to power in 1997, with "education, education, education" as their agenda, there has been a 47 per cent. real increase in education spending, yet the Chancellor lamented in the Budget that there are still underachieving schools, people leaving school who need a second chance to get further education and A-levels and schools in which there are insufficient science teachers. Spending money has thus not necessarily improved services. In many cases, spending money has simply bloated bureaucracy. If the structures are right, it is of course possible not to take more in tax, yet still improve services. We had this debate on education the other week. If the right structures are in place, improvements can be made to services, even with less money.
	Thirdly, if problems are identified, it does not mean that answers are given. The Chancellor talks about the need for enterprise and a competitive economy. We know that in Northern Ireland because we are heavily reliant on the public sector. We have an open and small economy that does not have internal economies of scale, so we have to export and thus must be competitive. During the years of the troubles, entrepreneurs were forced out by gangsters and so on, so we lost the enterprise culture. The problems have been identified, but I do not see much in the Budget to address them. If anything, the enterprise culture will not be stimulated, and let me give one example to explain why. The tax burden on local companies will increase. The Chancellor could have considered reducing corporation tax—we have seen the success of that elsewhere—but he did not, even though there was consensus about it and evidence that it could have led to an improvement.
	I know that my time is nearly up, so I will conclude by saying that the Budget is not expansionary and will not address the problems that the Chancellor identified. Other hon. Members have pointed out that he has walked away from the great problems that face us, such as pensions and health. Many of the burning problems that the Government should be addressing have not been dealt with in the Budget, so although I accept that there have been successes, I have no hesitation in saying that this is not the Chancellor's best Budget. The Budget will not address the problems that face us.

George Osborne: The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) urged me to be generous to the Chancellor, even if he is not here. Let me begin by congratulating the Chancellor, in his absence, on the delivery of his 10th Budget. It is an undoubted achievement. He has beaten a record set by Lloyd George in a week in which the Prime Minister has returned us to the politics of Lloyd George.
	We have had a good final day's debate, although I am sorry that Labour ran out of speakers about halfway through. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is not here now either, trotted out the Chancellor's litany of bogus statistics on investment, research and development, and productivity, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) comprehensively demolished each one of them in their robust contributions.
	How on earth can the Chancellor claim that research and development is going up when the day after the Budget figures are produced showing that R and D levels are down? How on earth can he claim that business investment is up when his own Red Book revises down the forecasts for business investment and when business investment levels are at a record low? How on earth can the Government claim seriously that productivity growth is up when everyone knows that it has slumped?
	There was an argument about which measure we should use for productivity growth. I am happy to use the one that the Chancellor himself used in 1998, based on output per worker, when he said that it was the
	"fundamental yardstick of economic performance".
	On that yardstick, he has fundamentally failed. Productivity growth is one fifth the level that he inherited. That must in part explain the sluggish growth that my right hon. and learned Friend talked about. [Interruption.] I welcome the Chancellor to his place. The 1.8 per cent. growth last year was below the EU average, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and the G7 average.
	We had other good contributions. I enjoyed those from the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson). My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for years, and I was one of his underlings on that Committee. He described how impossible it is to measure the Government's claims on Gershon, and the National Audit Office report on that is striking. My hon. Friend proposed getting the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit Opposition efficiency plans. I am happy to consider the idea, although I suspect that Sir John has his work cut out trying to get to the bottom of the Government's efficiency plans.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) drew attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and others did, to the decision to abolish the scheme that has given 500,000 people computer laptops. My right hon. Friend described it as the action of an analogue politician—a very good phrase. We will vote against that measure. Perhaps the Minister for Industry and the Regions, who was in the Chamber earlier, will join us, because only a few weeks ago he said that the scheme was a great example of what can be done when the Government and industry work together. If he works with us, we can stop it being abolished.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) gave a spirited defence of his beloved Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and dairy farmers, in the presence of the Chancellor himself. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) pointed out that there was nothing in the Budget speech for carers or manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) gave an excellent speech on the Government's failure to address the seriousness of the environmental challenge that we face. Of course, when we look in the Red Book we see that the proportion of taxes raised through environmental taxation will fall as a result of the measures introduced by the Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) became almost religious in his enthusiasm for his constituency, but he also drew attention to the serious problem of crime against schools.
	I hope that I shall not offend my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that the most interesting speech was made by the right hon. Member for Darlington. He chose not to talk about the 700 job losses at the County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust announced last week. Instead, he focused his fire on the Chancellor's poverty policies.
	The right hon. Member for Darlington is a practised assassin. He began by covering his tracks by lavishing praise on the record of the Chancellor, then he stuck the knife in. He called for "direct targeted tax cuts for low-income families"—but he knows that that is exactly the opposite of the strategy pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who explicitly rejected tax cuts in the Budget. He knows that his speech will be seen alongside that of his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), who attacked the Chancellor's extension of means-testing in yesterday's Budget debate. He hopes that his speech will be reported in the press tomorrow, because he was circulating it to the press lobby before he delivered it in the House. I am not a Kremlinologist, so I can only guess what those two arch-Blairites are trying to achieve.
	All is not well in the state of the Labour party, and the most charitable view is that, like the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, they believe that taxes are so high that
	"we are probably at the limit of what people are prepared to pay".
	Bang goes his job in the next Administration.

Brooks Newmark: He will lose his seat as well.

George Osborne: Yes, the hon. Gentleman will lose his seat at the election. However, he is right: we have a record tax burden, higher than at any time in our history. It is higher than the last time we had a Labour Government, when half the country was on strike. Instead of following the advice of the right hon. Member for Darlington and reducing taxes, the Budget increases taxes still further. Some £4 billion of taxes on businesses and North sea oil were pre-announced in the pre-Budget report, the zero per cent. corporation tax rate that the Chancellor himself trumpeted in his 2002 Budget has been abolished, and there are iniquitous retrospective changes to inheritance tax. All those tax changes, and 25 others, were absent from the Budget speech, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out, but they will all add to the complexity of the tax system.
	Despite that considerable tightening, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe drew our attention, the Chancellor is still running a budget deficit. It is an extraordinary achievement to have record taxes but still run a budget deficit—and it is getting worse. In the Budget, the Chancellor doubled his estimate for next year's budget deficit from the one that he made just three months ago. He confirmed that he is set to borrow £175 billion over the next six years. He has mortgaged not just today's taxpayers but tomorrow's, too.

Edward Balls: rose—

Hon. Members: No!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) to decide whether to accept an intervention.

George Osborne: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) has not attended today's debate, and he has not given a speech in the Budget debate. I will accept an intervention from the organ grinder, but I will not take one from the monkey.

Hon. Members: Hurrah!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all hon. Members, before they become overexcited, that good temper and moderation are the hallmarks of parliamentary language?

George Osborne: No one doubts that the Chancellor has spent a great deal of other people's money, but the question is: where has the money gone? The Chancellor may not have wanted to talk about the NHS on Budget day, but the rest of the country was doing so. On the same day as he delivered the Budget, the Royal Free hospital announced 500 job losses; the day after, Darlington hospitals announced another 700 job losses. A total of 4,000 NHS job cuts have been announced in just three weeks. In public the Chancellor blames just a few bad mangers, but everyone knows that in private he and his cabal blame the Health Secretary.

Edward Balls: rose—

George Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman will confirm that point I will happily give way to him.

Edward Balls: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can reply.

Edward Balls: Can the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr.   Osborne) confirm that he proposed to undermine the independence of the Bank of England and of the Governor by making Bank of England executives a minority on the Monetary Policy Committee? Why would he undermine the Governor of the Bank of England?

George Osborne: I support Bank of England independence and, like the Chancellor, I am looking at ways to entrench it still further. I enjoyed the New Statesman interview with the hon. Member for Normanton, in which he described himself as a socialist. He said that the finances of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport were baffling, and that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills had not handled the Education and Inspections Bill very well. I suggest that he spend more time trying to win friends among those on the Labour Benches than trying to intervene on us.
	The situation in the NHS is not the fault of the Secretary of State for Health. The fault lies at the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer provided the money, but he blocked the reform that would have made the money count. NHS productivity has fallen year on year. Three quarters of the money has disappeared in cost pressures. Now we have close to £1 billion of deficit and thousands of job losses.
	The NHS is not the only thing missing from the Budget. There is not a word on the pensions crisis brought about by the Chancellor's £5 billion pension tax and his extension of means-testing. I hope that he reads the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, who said in the House:
	"I do not think that, when we come to consider a new regime for pensions, we can continue as we have since 1997."—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 613.]
	Does the Chancellor agree with his former Chief Secretary? We do not know.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out so powerfully, there was no mention in the Budget speech or the Red Book of the decision to cancel the £200 council tax rebate. My right hon. Friend is right. The Chancellor talks about restoring trust in politics and gives speeches on the subject. How much more dishonest can one get than announcing before an election that pensioners will get a £200 cheque, then withdrawing it without a word of explanation after the election? I guess it is just the Chancellor's own special way of helping the Prime Minister with his local election campaign.
	The Chancellor should at least tell Labour councillors what he is up to. This weekend, after the Budget speech, the leader of the Labour group on Lambeth council wrote to a Mr. Patrick McLoughlin of Kennington Park road, London. A copy of the letter has mysteriously fallen into my hands. It comes with a glossy leaflet—it is interesting that the Prime Minister's picture does not appear on such leaflets any more. Under the heading "What will Labour do?" it states:
	"We will:
	Press the Government to provide more help for pensioners to pay their council tax bills."
	No doubt the leaflets are being pulped as we speak. Labour says one thing in the Chamber and another thing outside. It makes the Liberal Democrats look like amateurs—which is not very difficult with the new leader of the Liberal Democrats.
	Of course, the Chancellor did mention education. It is striking that hardly a single Labour Member who spoke today mentioned the great pledge to raise state school spending to private school levels. That was supposed to be the centrepiece of the Budget, but where is the timetable? How much will it cost? Over what level is spending to be increased? The Chancellor never told us that the Prime Minister made exactly the same pledge five years ago. There we have it—the first great statement of what a Brown premiership would do, and it turns out to be a reheated broken promise from the high days of the Blair premiership. I have a depressing feeling that this is the shape of things to come.

Ian Austin: I noticed that in the interviews that the hon. Gentleman gave, responding to the Budget last week, he refused to say whether he would support our pledge to increase spending on the state education sector. Does he agree with the shadow Chief Secretary, who admitted on Budget day that the Conservative spending plans would "certainly" mean spending less than Labour, and that more spending is not the answer?

George Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman is going to take a hand-out question, he should pick a better one.
	The Chancellor does not understand that education is about not only additional money, but reform. [Interruption.] We have matched the additional spending next year, and we have matched the capital spending, which is nothing like the £34 billion figure that the Chancellor has mentioned; according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the figure is more like £1 billion. We want to see education reform, and we now know that it can be delivered only with the support of this side of the House.
	While we are on the subject of education, why did the Chancellor not tell us more about his youth national community service scheme? For some reason, he did not find time during his one hour at the Dispatch Box to mention the fact that he has just appointed a new chairman of the scheme, so I shall make the announcement for him. The new chairman is a Mr. Rod Aldridge—a well-connected individual. In fact, he is so keen to get on with the job that he resigned from Capita the very next day.
	Six years ago, the Chancellor embarked on his great experiment of abandoning prudence. He decided to increase public sector spending hugely, while blocking the reforms that were necessary to make sure that the money got to the front line. Six years later, if you want to see the result of what has happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker, listen to the Prime Minister's own special adviser on public services, who has worked at the heart of No. 10. When he was on "Panorama" two weeks ago, he said this:
	"We're pouring money into the health service. We're pouring money into the education system. But we are not getting the quality of services that we expect. I think we're in a pretty disastrous situation".
	That is the next door neighbours' verdict on the record of No. 11—which is, of course, the subtext to the whole Budget.
	This is a battle over who is in charge of Labour's sinking ship. We have a Prime Minister on the other side of the world who admits that he was wrong to say that he was going, and we have a Chancellor who hardly dares leave the country in case he misses his chance again. So the Chancellor sits there reannouncing old promises on education, taxing more and spending more, painfully aware that so much money has been wasted.
	We are told that, unlike the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and his cabal are keen on establishing clear dividing lines with their opponents. Well, those dividing lines are emerging. We have a Chancellor who is addicted to taxation, and a growing consensus—which includes the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)—that higher taxes undermine aspiration and damage Britain's ability to compete. We have a Chancellor whose answer to everything is to spend, and a growing consensus that money alone is not the answer. We have a Chancellor who opposes reform, and an alliance in this House that will vote reform through. We have a Chancellor who describes himself as "a socialist", and a country that knows that a return to tax and spend socialism would bring this country to its knees. This Budget should have prepared Britain for the new global economy. Instead, we have a Chancellor who is stuck in the thinking of the past, when the country needs a modern, compassionate Conservative party, changing to meet the challenges of the future.

Des Browne: We have had four days of comprehensive and informative debate—at least until the last 20 minutes. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, and I shall endeavour to deal with as many points raised by hon. Members as I can in the time left to me.
	Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stood here and spoke for an hour or more on the specific policy implications of the Budget. He was responded to by the Leader of the Opposition, who shouted from the Dispatch Box for all of eight minutes. As I sat here—

Patrick McLoughlin: This is the punch line.

Des Browne: Perhaps I should—[Hon. Members: "More, more!"] It appears that both Chief Whips and shadow Chief Whips sometimes do not know when to keep quiet—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Chief Whip could moderate his tone.
	The Budget debate will be remembered by many as the one in which the contributions from Back Benchers, even when limited to 10 or 12 minutes were longer than the total contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. So there was to be no more Punch and Judy politics. As we have learned over the last few days, old Tory traits have not gone away. Disappointingly, we have had more of that today from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). But perhaps I should not have been disappointed by the lack of substance from him. Over the weekend I took the opportunity to read his diary in The Observer. I learned that in the week of the Budget he did several things. He spent considerable time with his children, for which I commend him. He was also reminded that he spent his teenage years watching sumptuous E.M. Forster adaptations, among other things. However, I scanned his contribution in The Observer carefully for the day of the Budget and found nothing, apart from the fact that he sat beside the Leader of the Opposition, who was assailed by a wall of sound.
	This has been a revealing debate and I especially welcome the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) to her place. I feared last week that she had done a Letwin—I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean I feared that she had done a right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr.   Letwin)—by exposing Tory cuts and then disappearing into the ether. Despite her absence, she certainly made a contribution to the debate, not least on the matter of our investment in education. As she has been reminded more than once, when asked on "Sky News" last Wednesday whether her reaction to the Government's spending meant that the Tories would be spending less, she replied, "It would, certainly." Later that day, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) to match our Budget commitment on education spending, the shadow Chief Secretary refused and replied, "That's not the answer."
	The Opposition were on a roll, because the shadow Chancellor, in interviews, then refused to support her announcements on capital spending and on state school spending. Later that evening, on "Newsnight", he could not mention any measure in the Budget that he supported. The next day, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), the shadow Minister for child care, said:
	"Of course we support the goal".—[Official Report, 23 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 508.]
	Better yet, the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills said yesterday
	"we accept the increase in school spending and the capital spending pledge."—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 649.]
	It is flip-flops all round. First, they want cuts, then they are confused, then they do not want cuts and finally they support our spending plans. What does the shadow Chancellor say now, when offered the opportunity to support our plans? He is unable to answer the question—[Interruption.]
	Let us look at climate change. For the past six years the Opposition have refused to support the climate change levy, which has cut carbon emissions by 28 million tonnes—[Interruption.] Today, they announce—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the Minister who is responding to the debate.

Des Browne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today, they announce that they will not vote against the Budget measures on the climate change levy—they have changed their mind and are flip-flopping again.
	However, I wish to be fair. The Opposition have one economic policy that we know of, and that is their third fiscal rule. It is that over the economic cycle, and regardless of the needs of the economy or the country, public spending and investment must, as a matter of   principle, always rise slower than growth. Indeed, today the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) described our rejection of the third fiscal rule as the dividing line between us. He is correct about that, because it would mean public spending £17 billion lower in the coming year and £16 billion lower in the year after. It would mean cutting spending in schools, cutting it in hospitals for doctors and nurses, cutting it in our transport system, and cutting our ability to invest in science and innovation. On the day after the Budget, the shadow Chancellor even said—on GMTV, no less:
	"When there's a general election we will start reducing the share of national income taken by the state."
	We know what that means—cuts.

Daniel Kawczynski: Some of us who actually participated in the debate raised serious issues to do with our constituents, particularly farmers in Shrewsbury and senior citizens. Will the Minister talk about the problems that our constituents are going to face instead of just criticising Tory shadow Ministers?

Des Browne: Of course, the hon. Gentleman, like many of his hon. Friends, made a bid for more money. I have to say that those bids for more investment were completely ignored by his Front Benchers. Of course they were, because how can they offer him more investment for his farmers or anybody else when they are planning cuts in public spending? That is the important point. They are planning cuts in public spending while every other Conservative Member, for one reason or another, calls for increases in spending.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Des Browne: Let the House have no doubt that this Budget sets out how we on the Government Benches will equip Britain for the future. It sets out how, building on a platform of stability and growth, we can invest in the skills and services—

John Hemming: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not keep standing if the Minister is not going to give way. It is for him to decide whether he is going to do so, and it would be helpful if he would indicate that.

Des Browne: I am not going to give way at the moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We can invest in the skills and services that we need to face the challenges and to grasp the opportunities of our global economy. This Budget is not about the past—it is about the future and long-term British success. It is about our clear ambition for Britain for success built on economic stability and growth. We have had 54 quarters of consecutive growth. I might remind the House that we have had the longest expansion in British history, with inflation at a 2 per cent. target, interest rates at a sustained low, and stable growth enabling British business to expand, leading to record employment, with some 2.3 million more jobs since 1997.
	This Budget equips our country for the future, investing in education, science and enterprise, and facing up to the global challenge of climate change. It is our approach, based on economic stability, with the proper balance between spending and borrowing, that is the right way to go. The Budget takes the right decisions to equip Britain for the future.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Des Browne: After I have taken an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, I will come to some of the individual points made during the debate.

Bernard Jenkin: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is possible for countries such as Ireland and Denmark to reduce public spending as a proportion of national income and to continue increasing public spending in gross terms, whereas it is impossible for that to be achieved in this country?

Des Browne: We are in this country increasing spending and investment, and both are generating growth in the economy. I have to say that the people of Denmark and Ireland did not have 18 years of Tory Government and a lack of investment in the infrastructure of the country to contend with.
	As I said at the outset, we have had a comprehensive, informative and wide-ranging debate. It ranged from the customary prophet-of-doom contribution that Labour Members have come to expect from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has predicted imminent recession in this country yearly since we came to power, to the enlightened and positive contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), who set a series of challenges for the shadow Chancellor, all of which he signally failed to answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) eloquently expressed support for disabled people and the poor of the world. He has supported those issues for many years.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) sought the safety of the Back Benches from which to make a significant number of calls for further public spending in his constituency. I am sure that the shadow Chancellor took note of that. However, it was not nearly as damaging a contribution from the Back Benches as that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who gave the game away in a sedentary intervention. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton sought to set a clear dividing line on tax, the hon. Member for Gainsborough interrupted and suggested that his Front-Bench spokesman meant tax cuts.
	In their individual ways, several hon. Members recorded genuine improvements in their constituencies, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). They acknowledged the opportunities that my right hon. Friend's Budget gave their communities.
	Much has been said in the debate about productivity and competitiveness, not least in the contributions of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Business in the UK needs stability above all. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered stability that the International Monetary Fund described as "remarkable". The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has already noted that UK has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy. The Budget does even more to support business, not least the 575,000 more small and medium-sized enterprises that have been founded in the UK since 1997.
	UK Trade & Investment will promote the United Kingdom abroad. We will establish a new business advisory council and enshrine in law the Hampton code of deregulatory practice. There will be specific budgets for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to reduce the burden on business. We will extend the research and development tax credits.
	We have half the productivity gap of France. We have closed the gap with Germany, we are ahead of Japan and we are keeping up with the United States. It is remarkable—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. We must listen to the Chief Secretary, who is now winding up the debate.

Des Browne: We have not only improved productivity but done that while creating 2.3 million new jobs. Labour Members can be rightly proud of that achievement because we have presided over the longest period of sustained employment growth since the 1950s when records began.

David Gauke: The Chief Secretary says that the Government have improved productivity. Will he explain precisely how he calculates that? According to witnesses to the Treasury Committee yesterday, any attempt to describe productivity as improving is "misleading".

Des Browne: The only years when productivity fell in the United Kingdom were Tory years. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was in his place at the beginning of the debate but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said when he opened it, over the economic cycle, which is the proper measure of productivity, there has been 2.3 per cent. growth compared with 2 per cent. in the previous cycle.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, joined by the hon. Member for Twickenham, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned the home computer initiative. The changes have been made to ensure better targeting of resources to meet the Government's objective of improving access to technology. The home computer initiative was never intended to subsidise those who can already afford computers. Exemptions were being used, contrary to the original intention, for second personal computers and, indeed, for games consoles. There has been a huge fall in computer prices since 1999, and the Government want to focus resources on those who would not otherwise be able to gain access to a computer to increase their IT literacy skills. In addition, computer ownership has risen from 28 per cent. to 60 per cent.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House really must let the Minister make his speech.

Des Browne: A number of hon. Members—

Anne McIntosh: rose—

Des Browne: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prides himself on the number of new jobs that have been created. Of the 3.2 million that have been created in the public sector, how many of the women in the civil service earn exactly the same as the men? Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that they earn 25 per cent. less than their male equivalents?

Des Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to remind the House that, since 1997, women's wages have increased twice as fast as men's wages. I recognise that there is still a gap between the two, but we are narrowing that gap, and that is a record of which we can rightly be proud.
	A number of Conservative Members have alleged that the tax burden is now the highest in history. That is of course dependent on the most spurious of all calculations of the tax burden, and it is completely wrong. The tax burden is actually lower now than it was for the entire period between 1981 and 1988 under Margaret Thatcher, and well below the peak tax burden in 1984. According to the experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the net tax burden on the average working family is half what it was when we came to power. As a result of all the tax and benefit changes that we have introduced, the average household will, from next month, be £950 a year better off in real terms than it was in 1997. According to Ernst and Young, the effective rate of corporation tax on British businesses is well below historic highs, down from 14 per cent. in 1997 to below 10 per cent. today.
	Of course, the amount of tax collected rises fastest when the economy is doing well—when business, the City, the housing market and retailers are doing well, and when there are more people in work, paying tax and moving up the earnings scale. The lowest tax burden of the past 30 years was in 1993–94, when the economy was barely growing, unemployment was above 3 million, millions of families faced negative equity and wage settlements were at a 25-year low.
	This Budget illustrates the gap between the Government's responsible preparation for global change and the instincts of the Conservative party, which would leave us all woefully unprepared for the future.

Greg Clark: rose—

Des Browne: I will not give way now.
	Underneath it all, no matter now compassionate their rhetoric, the Conservatives still have the desire to cut. We could do that too, of course, but it would be the wrong thing to do, and the Conservatives know it. We cannot face global competition with one hand tied behind our back. Instead, we will have spent some £5.4 billion a year on science by 2008. This year alone, we have invested more than £2.6 billion to renew UK university research infrastructure. This Budget adds to that by creating a single £1 billion a year health research fund. It also simplifies research funding arrangements and expands R and D support for medium-sized companies.
	Our drive is to improve the UK's position as the best location for inward investment, and that means strengthening our reputation as one of the world's finest locations for higher education. It also means promoting London as the world's leading centre for financial and business services. This is a Budget for the future, and for a strong and strengthening economy. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	(1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
	  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
	  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;
	  (c) for any relief, other than a relief that—
	  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.
	2. Rates of tobacco products duty
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—
	Table
	
		
			  
			 1.   Cigarettes An amount equal to 22 per cent of the retail price plus £105.10 per thousand cigarettes. 
			 2.   Cigars £153.07 per kilogram. 
			 3.   Hand-rolling tobacco £110.02 per kilogram. 
			 4.   Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £67.30 per kilogram. 
		
	
	(2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 22nd March 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	3. Rate of duty on beer
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 36(1AA)(a) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 for "£12.92" there shall be substituted "£13.26".
	(2) This Resolution shall have effect as from midnight on 26th March 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	4. Rates of duty on wine and made-wine
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For Part 1 of the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 there shall be substituted—
	Part 1
	Wine and made-wine of a strength not exceeding22 per cent
	
		
			  
			  
			 Description of wine or made-wine Rates of duty perhectolitre  
			  
			  £ 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 4 per cent 53.06 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent but not exceeding 5.5 per cent 72.95 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent and not sparkling 172.17 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but less than 8.5 per cent 166.70 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength of 8.5 per cent or of a strength exceeding 8.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent 220.54 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent but not exceeding 22 per cent 229.55 
			  
		
	
	(2) This Resolution shall have effect as from midnight on 26th March 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	5. Hydrocarbon oil etc (rates and rebates)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending rates of duty and rebate in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
	6. Hydrocarbon oil etc (road vehicles)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made enabling amendment of the definition of road vehicle in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
	7. Amusement machine licence duty
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending provisions of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 relating to amusement machine licence duty.
	8. Vehicle excise duty (rates)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(2), for "£170" there shall be substituted "£175".
	(3) For paragraph 1B there shall be substituted—
	" 1B The annual rate of vehicle excise duty applicable to a vehicle to which this Part of this Schedule applies shall be determined in accordance with Table A, where the vehicle is first registered before 23rd March 2006, or Table B, where the vehicle is first registered on or after that date, by reference to—
	  (a) the applicable CO 2 emissions figure, and
	whether the vehicle qualifies for the reduced rate of duty, or is liable to the standard rate or the premium rate of duty.
	Table A: Vehicles first registered before 23rd March 2006
	
		
			  
			  
			 CO2 emissions figure   Rate  
			 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 
			 Exceeding Notexceeding Reducedrate Standardrate Premiumrate 
			 g/km g/km £ £ £ 
			 100 120 30 40 50 
			 120 150 90 100 110 
			 150 165 115 125 135 
			 165 185 140 150 160 
			 185 — 180 190 195 
		
	
	Table B: Vehicles first registered on or after 23rd March 2006
	
		
			  
			  
			 CO2 emissions figure   Rate  
			 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 
			 Exceeding Notexceeding Reducedrate Standardrate Premiumrate 
			 g/km g/km £ £ £ 
			 100 120 30 40 50 
			 120 150 90 100 110 
			 150 165 115 125 135 
			 165 185 140 150 160 
			 185 225 180 190 195 
			 225 — 200 210 215 
		
	
	(4) In paragraph 1C—
	(a) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
	" (2) Condition A is that the vehicle—
	  (a) is constructed—
	  (i) so as to be propelled by a relevant type of fuel, or
	so as to be capable of being propelled by any of a number of relevant types of fuel, or
	  (b) is constructed or modified—
	  (i) so as to be propelled by a prescribed type of fuel, or
	so as to be capable of being propelled by any of a number of prescribed types of fuel, and complies with any other requirements prescribed for the purposes of this condition.", and
	(b) after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
	" (6) In this paragraph—
	"bioethanol" has the meaning given in section 2AB of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979,
	"relevant type of fuel" means—
	  (a) bioethanol, or
	a mixture of bioethanol and unleaded petrol, if the proportion of bioethanol by volume is at least 85%, and
	"unleaded petrol" has the meaning given in section 1(3C) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
	  (7) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, by regulations amend sub-paragraph (6)."
	(5) In paragraph 1J(a), for "£165" there shall be substituted "£170".
	(6) In paragraph 1K(a), after "1st March 2003" there shall be inserted "and before 1st January 2007".
	(7) In paragraph 2(1)—
	  (a) in paragraph (b), for "£30" there shall be substituted "£31",
	  (b) in paragraph (c), for "£45" there shall be substituted "£46", and
	  (c) in paragraph (d), for "£60" there shall be substituted "£62".
	(8) In Schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, after paragraph 24 there shall be inserted—
	"Light passenger vehicles with low CO 2 emissions
	25 A vehicle is an exempt vehicle if—
	  (a) it is a vehicle to which Part 1A of Schedule 1 applies, and
	the applicable CO 2 emissions figure (as defined in paragraph 1A(3) and (4) of that Schedule) for the vehicle does not exceed 100 g/km."
	(9) Paragraph (8) shall come into force on 23rd March 2006; but nothing in that paragraph shall have the effect that a nil licence is required to be in force in respect of a vehicle while a vehicle licence is in force in respect of it.
	(10) The rest of this Resolution shall have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after that date.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	9. Value added tax (gaming machines)
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 23 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
	10. Value added tax (buildings and land)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for, and in connection with, conferring power on the Treasury—
	  (a) to substitute Schedule 10 to the Value Added Tax 1994 for the purpose of rewriting that Schedule with amendments, and
	  (b) to amend Group 1 of Schedule 9 to that Act.
	11. Value added tax (works of art, antiques, etc)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 21 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in relation to works of art, antiques, collections and collector's pieces.
	12. Value added tax (missing trader intra-community fraud)
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of value added tax, provision may be made for, and in connection with, securing that—
	  (a) supplies of goods made to persons carrying on businesses are treated for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 as their taxable supplies made in the course or furtherance of their businesses, and
	  (b) taxable persons carrying on businesses to whom supplies of goods are made by other taxable persons account for and pay value added tax on those supplies.
	13. Value added tax (face-value vouchers)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending, or making amendments connected with, Schedule 10A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
	14. Income tax (charge and rates for 2006–07)
	Resolved,
	That income tax shall be charged for the year 2006–07, and for that year—
	  (a) the starting rate shall be 10%;
	  (b) the basic rate shall be 22%;
	  (c) the higher rate shall be 40%.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	15. Corporation tax (charge and rate for 2007)
	Resolved,
	That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 2007 at the rate of 30%.
	16. Corporation tax (small companies' rate and fraction for 2006)
	Resolved,
	That for the financial year 2006—
	  (a) the small companies' rate shall be 19%, and
	  (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be 11/400ths.
	17. Corporation tax (starting rate and non-corporate distribution rate)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That provision may be made for, and in connection with, the abolition of—
	  (a) the corporation tax starting rate,
	  (b) the relief from corporation tax under section 13AA(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and
	  (c) the non-corporate distribution rate.
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 259.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	18. Group relief (corporation tax)
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of corporation tax, provision may be made (including provision having retrospective effect) in relation to group relief.
	19. Tax relief for R&D expenditure of small or medium-sized companies
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to relief under Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 2000.
	20. Tax relief for R&D expenditure of large companies etc
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to relief under Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2002.
	21. Tax relief for expenditure on vaccine research etc
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to relief under Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 2002.
	22. Films and sound recordings
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the taxation of activities in connection with films and sound recordings.
	23. Charities (relief on income tax and corporation tax)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending and supplementing sections 505 and 506 of and Schedule 20 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	24. Gift aid (payments by companies)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 339 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	25. Income tax (mobile telephones)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 266(2) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 there shall be inserted at the end "or
	  (d) section 319 (mobile telephones)."
	(2) In section 267(2) of that Act there shall be inserted at the end "and
	  (g) section 319 (mobile telephones)."
	(3) For section 319 of that Act there shall be substituted—
	" 319 Mobile telephones
	(1) No liability to income tax arises by virtue of section 62 (general definition of earnings) or Chapter 10 of Part 3 (taxable benefits: residual liability to charge) in respect of the provision of one mobile telephone for an employee without any transfer of property in it.
	In this section "mobile telephone" means telephone apparatus which—
	  (a) is not physically connected to a land-line, and
	is not used only as a wireless extension to a telephone which is physically connected to a land-line, or any thing which may be used in such apparatus for the purpose of gaining access to, or using, a public electronic communications service.
	In this section the reference to the provision of a mobile telephone includes a reference to the provision, together with the mobile telephone provided, of access to, or the use of, a public electronic communications service by means of one mobile telephone number.
	For the purposes of subsection (2) "telephone apparatus" means wireless telegraphy apparatus designed or adapted for the primary purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages and used in connection with a public electronic communications service."
	(4) The amendments made by this Resolution shall have effect for the year 2006–07 and subsequent years of assessment.
	(5) But the amendment made by paragraph (3) shall not cause any liability to income tax to arise in respect of the provision of a mobile telephone for an employee, or a member of an employee's family or household, if the mobile telephone was first provided to him before 6th April 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	26. Income tax (computer equipment)
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That—
	(1) Section 320 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 shall be omitted.
	(2) This Resolution shall have effect for the year 2006–07 and subsequent years of assessment.
	(3) But this Resolution shall not cause any liability to income tax to arise in respect of the provision of computer equipment by making it available to an employee, or a member of an employee's family or household, if the computer equipment was first made available to him before 6th April 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 259.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	27. Chargeable gains
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending, or making amendments connected with, the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
	28. Income tax (interest relief: film partnership)
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made restricting the relief available under sections 353 and 362 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in respect of certain loans to buy into partnerships carrying on trade in relation to films or other recordings.
	29. Transfers of income arising from securities
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 730 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	30. Stock lending
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax—
	  (a) in relation to stock lending arrangements, and
	  (b) for and in connection with treating arrangements which are not stock lending arrangements as if they were such arrangements.
	31. Loan relationships etc
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for the purposes of corporation tax in relation to—
	  (a) loan relationships, and
	  (b) other relationships where a company stands, or is to be treated as standing, in the position of a creditor or debtor in relation to a debt.
	32. Derivative contracts
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for the purposes of corporation tax in relation to derivative contracts.
	33. Intangible fixed assets
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 29 to the Finance Act 2002.
	34. Controlled foreign companies
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 90 of the Finance Act 2002.
	35. Transfer of assets abroad
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending, or making amendments connected with, Chapter 3 of Part 17 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	36. Income tax (benefits received by former owner of property)
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2004.
	37. Leases of plant or machinery
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax, provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to leases of plant or machinery.
	38. Corporation tax (companies carrying on leasing business)
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of corporation tax, provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to any company carrying on (whether alone or in partnership) a business which consists of or includes leasing plant or machinery.
	39. Insurance companies
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about insurance companies.
	40. Income tax (settlements)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to settlors, beneficiaries and trustees of settlements.
	41. Investment reliefs (limits on value of gross assets of issuers of shares etc)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 293(6A) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("ICTA")—
	  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£15 million" there shall be substituted "£7 million", and
	  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£16 million" there shall be substituted "£8 million".
	(2) In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 28B to ICTA—
	  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£15 million" there shall be substituted "£7 million", and
	  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£16 million" there shall be substituted "£8 million".
	(3) In paragraph 22(1) and (2) of Schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2000—
	  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£15 million" there shall be substituted "£7 million", and
	  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£16 million" there shall be substituted "£8 million".
	(4) Paragraphs (1) and (3) of this Resolution have effect in relation to shares issued on or after 6th April 2006, subject to paragraphs (5) and (6) of this Resolution.
	(5) Neither of paragraphs (1) and (3) of this Resolution has effect in relation to shares issued on or after 6th April 2006 to a person who subscribed for them before 22nd March 2006.
	(6) Paragraph (1) of this Resolution does not have effect in relation to shares issued on or after 6th April 2006 to the managers of an investment fund approved for the purposes of section 311 of ICTA by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs if—
	  (a) the fund was approved before 22nd March 2006,
	  (b) investments in the fund have been accepted before 6th April 2006, and
	  (c) the shares are issued to the managers as nominee for an individual who has (whether or not before 6th April 2006) invested in the fund.
	(7) Paragraph (2) of this Resolution has effect in relation to relevant holdings issued on or after 6th April 2006, subject to paragraph (8) of this Resolution.
	(8) Paragraph (2) of this Resolution does not have effect for the purpose of determining whether any shares or securities acquired by a company ("the trust company") by means of the investment of protected money are, for the purposes of section 842AA of ICTA, to be regarded as comprised in qualifying holdings of the company at any time.
	(9) In paragraph (8) of this Resolution "protected money" means—
	  (a) money raised by the issue before 6th April 2006 of shares in or securities of the trust company, or
	  (b) money derived from the investment by the trust company of any such money.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	42. Venture capital trusts (relief from income tax)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Schedule 15B to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	43. Venture capital trusts (meaning of"investments")
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending the meaning of "investments" for the purposes of approvals, and withdrawals of approvals, under section 842AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	44. Securities and securities options
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) Section 420 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(f), at the beginning there shall be inserted "options and".
	(3) In subsection (5)(e), at the beginning there shall be inserted "securities".
	(4) In subsection (8), in the definition of "securities option", after "acquire securities" there shall be inserted "other than a right to acquire securities which is acquired pursuant to a right or opportunity made available under arrangements the main purpose (or one of the main purposes) of which is the avoidance of tax or national insurance contributions".
	(5) The amendments made by this Resolution shall have effect in relation to options acquired on or after 2nd December 2004; but paragraph (4) shall also have effect in relation to an option acquired before that date where something is done on or after that date as part of the arrangements under which it was made available.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	45. PAYE (retrospective notional payments)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with facilitating the operation of pay as you earn in relation to notional payments treated by any Act as made before the date on which the Act is passed.
	46. Alternative finance
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made—
	  (a) amending, and permitting amendment of, Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Finance Act 2005, and
	  (b) about the treatment of alternative finance arrangements as loans to employees.
	47. Corporation tax (nuclear decommissioning)
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That provision may be made amending Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2004.
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 73.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	48. Securitisation companies
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the taxation of securitisation companies.
	49. Real Estate Investment Trusts
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made enabling companies which carry on property rental business to acquire a status that provides certain exemptions and liabilities (in relation to companies and shareholders).
	50. Oil (market value)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to the market value of oil (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975).
	51. Oil (nominated contracts and blended oil)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made—
	  (a) for allocating blended oil to different fields for the purposes of section 2 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975, and
	  (b) amending section 61 of and Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1987.
	52. Ring fence trades (rate of supplementary charge)
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That—
	(1) In section 501A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, in subsection (1), for "10 per cent" there shall be substituted "20 per cent".
	(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall have effect in relation to any accounting period beginning on or after 1st January 2006 (but see also paragraph (3)).
	(3) For the purpose of calculating the amount of the supplementary charge on a company for an accounting period (a "straddling period") beginning before 1st January 2006 and ending on or after that date—
	  (a) so much of the straddling period as falls before 1st January 2006, and so much of the straddling period as falls on or after that date, shall be treated as separate accounting periods, and
	  (b) the company's adjusted ring fence profits for the straddling period shall be apportioned to the two separate accounting periods in proportion to the number of days in those periods.
	(4) The amount of the supplementary charge on the company for the straddling period shall be the sum of the amounts of supplementary charge that would, in accordance with paragraph (3), be chargeable on the company for those separate accounting periods.
	(5) In the case of a company's straddling period—
	  (a) the Instalment Payments Regulations shall apply as if the amendment made by paragraph (1) had not been made, but
	  (b) those Regulations shall also apply separately, in accordance with the following paragraph, in relation to the increase in the amount of any supplementary charge on the company for that period that arises as a result of that amendment.
	(6) In that separate application of those Regulations as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), those Regulations shall have effect as if, for the purposes of those Regulations,—
	  (a) the straddling period were an accounting period beginning on 1st January 2006,
	  (b) supplementary charge were chargeable on the company for that period, and
	  (c) the amount of that charge were equal to the increase in the amount of the supplementary charge for the straddling period that arises as a result of the amendment made by paragraph (1).
	(7) Any reference in the Instalment Payments Regulations to the total liability of a company shall, accordingly, be read—
	  (a) in their application as a result of paragraph (5)(a), as a reference to the amount that would be the company's total liability for the straddling period if the amendment made by paragraph (1) had not been made, and
	  (b) in their application as a result of paragraph (5)(b), as a reference to the amount of the supplementary charge on the company for the deemed accounting period under paragraph (6)(a).
	(8) For the purposes of the Instalment Payments Regulations—
	  (a) a company shall be regarded as a large company as respects the deemed accounting period under paragraph (6)(a) if (and only if) it is a large company for those purposes as respects the straddling period, and
	  (b) any question whether a company is a large company as respects the straddling period shall be determined as it would have been determined if the amendment made by paragraph (1) had not been made.
	(9) If the Instalment Payments Regulations—
	  (a) apply in relation to a company's liability to supplementary charge for the deemed accounting period under paragraph (6)(a), and
	  (b) would (but for this paragraph) treat any instalment payment in respect of that liability as being due and payable on a date falling on or before 22nd March 2006,
	those Regulations shall have effect as if the payment were due and payable instead at the end of the period of 14 days beginning with that date.
	(10) In this Resolution—
	  (a) "adjusted ring fence profits" has the meaning given by section 501A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,
	  (b) "the Instalment Payments Regulations" means the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998,
	  (c) "supplementary charge" means any sum chargeable under section 501A(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as if it were an amount of corporation tax.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 75.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	53. Ring fence trades (exploration expenditure supplement)
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 19B to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
	54. Inheritance tax (rates and rate bands for years 2008–09 and 2009–10)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for successive substitutions of the Table in Schedule 1 to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.
	55. Inheritance tax (rules for trusts etc)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made—
	  (a) amending provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 relating to settled property, and
	  (b) amending, in connection with cases where a person's interest in settled property has come to an end, provisions relating to property that, for purposes of that Act, is property subject to a reservation.
	56. Inheritance tax (purchase of interests in foreign trusts)
	Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 48 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.
	57. Pension schemes etc
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to pension schemes and similar schemes under which benefits are provided to or in respect of employees or former employees.
	58. Stamp duty land tax (thresholds)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 55 of the Finance Act 2003 in subsection (2), in Table A, for "£120,000", in both places, there shall be substituted "£125,000".
	(2) In Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 2003, in paragraph 2(3), in Table A, for "£120,000", in both places, there shall be substituted "£125,000".
	(3) The amendments made by this Resolution shall have effect in relation to any transaction of which the effective date (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003) is after 22nd March 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	59. Stamp duty (thresholds)
	Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning with 23rd March 2006 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
	(1) In Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1999, in paragraph 4, for "£120,000", in both places, there shall be substituted "£125,000".
	(2) The amendment made by this Resolution shall have effect in relation to instruments executed after 22nd March 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.
	60. Stamp duty land tax (leases)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Schedules 5 and 17A to the Finance Act 2003.
	61. Stamp duty land tax (unit trust schemes)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) Section 64A shall be omitted.
	(3) In section 101—
	  (a) in subsection (1) for "provisions" there shall be substituted "provision", and
	  (b) in subsection (7) the words from "section 53" to "companies), or" shall be omitted.
	(4) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to any land transaction of which the effective date is, or is after, 22nd March 2006 (but see paragraphs (5) and (6)).
	(5) This Resolution shall not have effect in relation to—
	  (a) any land transaction which is effected in pursuance of a contract entered into and substantially performed before 2 p.m. on 22nd March 2006 ("the relevant time"), or
	  (b) any other land transaction which is effected in pursuance of a contract entered into before the relevant time and which is not an excluded transaction.
	  (6) For this purpose, a land transaction effected in pursuance of a contract is an excluded transaction if—
	  (a) any provision of the contract has effect by reference to a unit trust scheme and the scheme is not established before the relevant time,
	  (b) at or after the relevant time the contract is varied in a way that significantly affects the land transaction (see paragraph (7)),
	  (c) the subject-matter of the land transaction is not identified in the contract in a way that would have enabled its acquisition before the relevant time,
	  (d) rights under the contract are assigned at or after the relevant time,
	  (e) the land transaction is effected in consequence of the exercise, at or after the relevant time, of any option, right of pre-emption or similar right, or
	  (f) at or after the relevant time there is an assignment, subsale or other transaction (relating to the whole or part of the contract's subject-matter) as a result of which a person other than the purchaser under the contract becomes entitled to call for a conveyance to him.
	(7) For the purposes of paragraph (6)(b) the contract is varied in a way that significantly affects the land transaction if (and only if)—
	  (a) it is varied so as to substitute a different purchaser in relation to the land transaction,
	  (b) it is varied so as to alter the subject-matter of the land transaction, or
	  (c) it is varied so as to alter the consideration for the land transaction.
	(8) Expressions which are used in Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 and in this Resolution have the same meaning in this Resolution as in that Part.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	62. Stamp duty land tax (alternative finance)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending and supplementing sections 71A to 73 of the Finance Act 2003.
	63. Rate of landfill tax
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 42 of the Finance Act 1996, for the amount specified in subsection (1)(a), and the corresponding amount specified in subsection (2), there shall be substituted "£21".
	(2) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to taxable disposals made, or treated as made, on or after 1st April 2006.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	64. Climate change levy (rates)
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made substituting the Table in paragraph 42(1) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000.
	65. Climate change levy (abolition of half-rate supplies)
	Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the purposes of climate change levy, no supply made on or after 1st April 2006 shall be a half-rate supply.
	(2) Paragraphs (3) to (6) shall have effect for determining when a supply is to be regarded as made for the purposes of paragraph (1).
	(3) A supply—
	  (a) of electricity, or
	  (b)of gas that is in a gaseous state and is of a kind supplied by a gas utility,
	is to be regarded as made at the time when the electricity or gas is actually supplied.
	(4) In the case of a supply of a taxable commodity not falling within paragraph (3) by a person who is resident in the United Kingdom—
	  (a) if the commodity is to be removed, the supply is to be regarded as made at the time of the removal,
	  (b) if the commodity is not to be removed, the supply is to be regarded as made when the commodity is made available to the person to whom it is supplied.
	This paragraph shall not apply if paragraph (6) applies in the case of the supply.
	(5) In the case of a supply of a taxable commodity not falling within paragraph (3) by a person who is not resident in the United Kingdom, the supply is to be regarded as made—
	  (a) when the commodity is delivered to the person to whom it is supplied, or
	  (b) if earlier, when it is made available in the United Kingdom to that person.
	This paragraph shall not apply if paragraph (6) applies in the case of the supply.
	(6) In any case where, by virtue of paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000, a person is, for the purposes of that Schedule, deemed to make a supply to himself of a quantity of a taxable commodity—
	  (a) which he has produced, and
	  (b) which does not fall within paragraph (3),
	the supply is to be regarded as made at the time when he produced that particular quantity of the taxable commodity.
	And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	66. Relief from tax (incidental and consequential charges)
	Resolved,
	That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

PROCEDURE (EVASION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may include provision requiring manufacturers of tobacco products not to facilitate smuggling and enabling the imposition of a penalty for breach of that requirement.

PROCEDURE (FILM TAX CREDITS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision for tax credits to be paid to film production companies in respect of expenditure on film making activities.

PROCEDURE (INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENTS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision about arrangements made in relation to any territory or territories outside the United Kingdom and concerning the exchange of information, the recovery of debts or the service of documents relating to taxes imposed under the domestic law of the United Kingdom or taxes imposed under the law of that territory or any of those territories.

PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—
	  (a) provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2007;
	  (b) provision amending, or making amendments connected with, section 139 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003;
	  (c) provision enabling regulations to be made about taxation in respect of income arising from participation in, or the provision of certain services in relation to, the 2012 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games;
	  (d) provision in relation to the residence of trustees of settlements;
	  (e) provision for substituting the Table in Schedule 1 to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in relation to chargeable transfers made on or after 6th April 2008 or made on or after 6th April 2009;
	  (f) provision amending provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 relating to settled property;
	  (g) provision about the rates of climate change levy.
	Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Darling, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Secretary Alan Johnson, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Mr. Des Browne, John Healey, Mr. Ivan Lewis and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

Finance Bill

Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 161].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the remaining motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Civil Aviation (Scotland)

That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Health and Safety

That the draft Railway Safety Levy Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Ecclesiastical Law

That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Cinemas and Film

That the draft Films (Definition of "British Film") Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Income Tax

That the draft Authorised Investment Funds (Tax) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Tax Credits

That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Government Resources and Accounts

That the draft Special Health Authorities (Audit) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
	That the draft Child Benefit (Rates) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Social Security (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Employment Zones (Allocation to Contractors) Pilot Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Highways

That the draft Restricted Byways (Application and Consequential Amendment of Provisions) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
	That the draft Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Modifications) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
	That the draft Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Insolvency

That the draft Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Employment and Training

That the draft Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

Serious Organised Crime Agency

That the draft Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Application and Modification of Certain Enactments to Designated Staff of SOCA) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Lord Chancellor

That the draft Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Children and Young Persons

That the draft Information Sharing Index (England) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Watts.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant toStanding Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Financial Services Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15345/05 and Addendum 1, the European Commission's White Paper: Financial Services Policy 2005–2010; and agrees with the UK's five priorities for the future approach to financial services in the EU.

Access to European Databases on Asylum, Immigration and Visas

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15122/05, Commission Communication on improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, and No. 15142/05, Draft Decision on access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purpose of prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences; and supports the Government's view that law enforcement access to the VIS may provide useful information that could assist in the course of investigations into specific cases related to serious criminal or terrorist offences, but that this access must be subject to appropriate standards of data protection and that any future legislative proposals, that could be brought forward as a result of Council Document 15122/05, must first be considered carefully, with full consideration given to the impact that they might have on personal privacy.—[Mr. Watts.]
	Question agreed to

Welsh Grand Committee

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 19th April at Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Watts.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to petitions, and the first one—[Interruption.] Order. May I say to the House that we still have business to deal with, and it is not normal to rush out of the Chamber in a crowd? Will hon. Members please resume their seats or leave quietly so that we can get on with our next business in an orderly fashion?

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have clarity on whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members heard what I just asked them to do. We have more business to get on with. Please will they now leave quietly and in an orderly fashion?

John McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have clarity on whether the House will be dealing with amendments from the Lords on the Civil Aviation Bill tomorrow? If so, those amendments have not yet been published and are therefore not available to Members to amend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, those matters are not yet put before the House for tomorrow.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Telecommunications Mast (North Fambridge)

John Whittingdale: I understand that this is the first of a number of petitions to be presented tonight. Although it is on a different topic from those that follow, it is one that my constituents feel very strongly about. It is signed by 582 residents of the village of North Fambridge, which equates to 86.6 per cent. of the registered voters of that village.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of residents North Fambridge, Chelmsford, Essex
	Declares that the appeal by Orange Personal Communications Ltd at White House Farm, Ferry Road, North Fambridge, Essex for the installation of a 22 m Monopole with 6 Antenna and 4 Transmission Dishes within a 6 x 6 metre compound is contrary to locally determined planning rules which includes being in a Special Landscape Area and situated between sites of National and International designated nature conservation areas. The application does not take into account the health issues highlighted by the courts, the residents' human rights, the number of children or sensitive people living nearby this proposed site, nor does the application include any response to the precautionary approach as advocated by the Stewart Report and recent Telecommunication Masts (Planning Control) Bill.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons resolves that Her Majesty's Government, as a matter of urgent public importance, freeze this application until the full implications of a Telecommunications Mast of this magnitude are known.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now have several petitions on the same topic and it would be helpful if hon. Members were brief in their contributions, especially after the first one, and did not repeat what had already been said. When they have said what they want to say, I would be grateful if they moved along the Back Benches to put their petitions in the bag as speedily as politeness allows.

Community Hospitals

Graham Stuart: The presentation of tonight's 44 petitions follows the national community hospitals rally, which took place in Old Palace Yard this afternoon. People from all over England came to Westminster to present their views and tell Ministers about the commitment that they feel to their community hospitals. They want them to be supported.
	I wish to present a petition on behalf of the supporters of Hornsea cottage hospital. It declares:
	The Petitioners welcome the support for community hospitals in the recent Health White Paper "Our Health, Our Care, Our Say", which recognises the important role of a renewed community hospital network in delivering enhanced local care.
	The Petitioners are concerned by the continuing programme of cuts and closures to viable and valued community hospitals since the White Paper.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall urge the Department of Health to conduct a swift review of all decisions to reduce or close services.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	I also wish to present petitions with exactly the same wording on behalf of the supporters of Withernsea hospital and of the Beverley Westwood hospital in my constituency.
	To lie upon the Table.

John Gummer: I wish to present petitions on behalf of the Felixstowe Bartlet and Felixstowe general hospitals and Aldeburgh cottage hospital, all of which were built by public subscription, said to be perfectly safe immediately before the election and told that they were to be closed or halved in size immediately after the election. It is therefore unsurprising that my constituents feel strongly about that. They have used the same wording as the other petitions presented tonight. I believe that the Government, who have not so far done so, should listen to them.
	To lie upon the Table.

Edward Davey: This is the second time that I have presented a petition to the House on behalf of local residents who are concerned about the future of Surbiton hospital. On the previous occasion, thanks to the good offices of the Surrey Comet, we were able, over a period of two months, to produce a petition signed by more than 7,000 constituents. Thanks to the current exercise, led excellently by Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together, we have managed to produce a petition with more than 700 signatures in less than a week. I therefore ask leave to present it petition on behalf of my constituents.
	To lie upon the Table.

Tim Yeo: I should like to present a petition that is signed by more than 800 of my constituents, expressing their support for the excellent community hospitals in Sudbury—Walnuttree and St. Leonards—and their dismay at the decision of the West Suffolk primary care trust to close those valuable local services in defiance of stated Government policy, in breach of a commitment given only weeks before the general election with the Department of Health's full support, and regardless of the considerable damage that that will inflict on my constituents. The wording of the petitions is the same as those of the other CHANT petitions that have been presented tonight.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also wish to present on your behalf a petition signed by a large number of your constituents, expressing their support for Hartismere hospital in your constituency.
	To lie upon the Table.

Desmond Swayne: I wish to present three petitions on behalf of the Milford on Sea War Memorial hospital, the Fordingbridge hospital and the Lymington hospital. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and I presented to New Forest primary care trust a petition on behalf of all our hospitals signed by some 45,000 residents.
	To lie upon the Table.

Julian Lewis: I wish to present two more petitions on behalf of the Fenwick hospital, Lyndhurst and the Hythe hospital on the waterside, in identical terms to the other CHANT petitions presented tonight. I am pleased to add that, as a result of the large petition that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) described, it has been decreed that the five hospitals in New Forest, West, New Forest, East and Romsey are scheduled for reprieve. We wait to see whether that will occur.
	To lie upon the Table.

Ian Taylor: I should like to present the petitions of the friends and supporters of four cottage hospitals in my constituency: Cobham and Oxshott community hospital; Molesey hospital; Thames Ditton hospital at Emberbrook; and Walton community hospital. At present, none of those hospitals is threatened with closure, although there continues to be great uncertainty about Emberbrook, but 3,600 of my constituents have signed the petitions. They have noted the Secretary of State's recent words in the House that community facilities that are needed for the long term must not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures.
	I present these petitions, which have identical wording to the other CHANT petitions presented tonight, in the hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the urgent requests for security from those of my constituents who have signed them.
	To lie upon the Table.

Roger Berry: In the light of your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of the state of my voice, I shall very briefly express my pleasure at presenting the petition on behalf of the supporters of the Cossham Memorial hospital, Kingswood. It is expressed in terms identical to the other petitions on community hospitals presented here this evening.
	To lie upon the Table.

John Stanley: I wish to present two petitions. I present the first on behalf of the Edenbridge War Memorial hospital in my constituency, where more than one third of the beds have been closed as a result of the Government's financial policies towards the South West Kent primary care trust. I present the second petition on behalf of the Tonbridge cottage hospital, where half the beds have now been closed as a result of the Government's policies. In reflection of the dismay of my constituents, I wish to present these petitions to the House.
	To lie upon the Table.

Philip Hammond: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the supporters of Weybridge hospital. The hospital was completely rebuilt in the 1990s at public expense. Since then, it has been generously supported by the friends of Weybridge hospital, who have organised this petition, which is worded in identical terms to the other petitions presented tonight.
	To lie upon the Table.

David Maclean: I rise to present four petitions worded in identical terms to those already enunciated tonight. The first is on behalf of the Penrith and Eden community hospital; the second is on behalf of Wigton community hospital; the third is on behalf of the League of Friends of the Ruth Lancaster James hospital in Alston, in the Pennines; and the fourth is on behalf of the Brampton and District War Memorial cottage hospital. These petitions have been signed by a small representative sample of the 69,381 signatures that we have collected on a petition that covers all the hospitals in Cumbria. We believe that that sets a record for people of Cumbria of all persuasions, from all areas, and of all political parties and of none, being united in asking that our community hospitals be not only saved but put at the heart of the Government's new strategy of care in the community and of a regenerated and enhanced local care network.
	To lie upon the Table.

Philip Dunne: I rise to present petitions, in identical form to the others that have been presented this evening, on behalf of Ludlow community hospital and Bishop's Castle community hospital. The petition on Bishop's Castle hospital contains 1,917 names, and I should like to remind the House that, in January, I presented petitions with more than 22,000 names on behalf of Ludlow community hospital and Bridgenorth community hospital, following a march of more than 8,000 people through the streets of Ludlow and Bridgenorth in support of the continuation of their community hospitals.
	To lie upon the Table.

Sandra Gidley: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the supporters of Romsey hospital in Hampshire, who also raised more than £1 million in 2000 to improve and preserve the hospital. I should also like to pay tribute to the leagues of friends of Romsey hospital and the hospitals in the New Forest, which are working together to ensure that any further threat of closure is robustly challenged.
	To lie upon the Table.

Tom Levitt: I wish to present what could be the largest so far of the petitions physically presented tonight, with 4,133 supporters. It concerns the minor injuries unit at Buxton cottage hospital, which is currently unable to provide a 24-hour service as it would wish. The petition is of identical wording to the other CHANT petitions presented tonight. It is presented in the hope and expectation that a full 24-hour service will be resumed, and that the cottage hospital will carry on its role in the future.
	To lie upon the Table.

Nicholas Winterton: I wish to present the petition of the friends and supporters of the Macclesfield district general hospital, the East Cheshire NHS trust and its satellite community hospitals. Those are popular, supported and viable hospitals, and it is important that the Government take heed of the views of people who use them. The wording of the petition is identical to that of the other CHANT petitions presented tonight.
	To lie upon the Table.

Ann Winterton: I wish to present a petition expressed in identical terms to those presented earlier this evening, on behalf of the "save our wards" campaign in Congleton, which was set up to support valuable services at the Macclesfield district general hospital, the East Cheshire NHS trust, and at the Congleton War Memorial hospital, which was built by private subscription following the great war. My constituents value the services at both those hospitals and wish to see no more cuts.
	To lie upon the Table.

Richard Spring: I want to present a petition on behalf of the supporters of Newmarket community hospital. It follows a series of meetings and a march of 1,000 people. The petition has identical wording to other CHANT petitions presented tonight, but is also a recognition of the view of the people of Newmarket that closing down facilities in their much-loved community hospital does not add in any way, but quite the reverse, to patient care.
	To lie upon the Table.

Jamie Reed: On behalf of Millom community hospital, Mary Hewetson hospital in Keswick, the Maryport Victorian cottage hospital, the Cockermouth cottage hospital and the Workington community hospital, I wish to present petitions in identical terms to those presented earlier. It is a matter of fact that my health area has received an increase in funding of almost 100 per cent. since 1997. Those cottage hospitals are essential to the newly announced £100 million-plus acute hospital in the area. I want to place on record my thanks not only to the leagues of friends of the various hospitals but to Ministers who have helped me with this and other issues relating to the health economy in my area, and to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has recently invested £18 million in those hospitals.
	To lie upon the Table.

Andrew Murrison: I wish to present petitions, in similar terms to those already presented, on behalf of Bradford on Avon, Trowbridge, Warminster and Westbury community hospitals in my constituency. I do so in the hope that, having noted the Secretary of State's fine words in the White Paper earlier this year in support of community hospitals, she will see fit to act on those words.
	To lie upon the Table.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish to present petitions on behalf of my constituents and the league of friends of Tetbury hospital trust and Fairford hospital. Those hospitals were built with private subscriptions, they have both been open for well over a century, and my constituents ask that the Government honour their election manifesto by supporting and keeping open community hospitals.
	To lie upon the Table.

Boris Johnson: I wish to present petitions relating to the Townlands hospital in Henley and, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Chipping Norton War Memorial hospital. I hope that if and when any of the hospitals concerned are reprieved, as they ought to be if the Government stick by their earlier pledges in the House, the whole campaign will stick together and fight on regardless until Townlands and others are safe.
	To lie upon the Table.

BRAIN CANCER (CHILDREN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watts.]

Jeremy Wright: Thomas Archer died in his father's arms on 30 October 2005. Thomas, who lived a few streets away from me in Rugby, was a little over two years old, and died of a brain tumour.
	In July last year, Thomas became ill and displayed several symptoms that caused his parents concern, including substantial loss of balance. Twice during that month they took him to their local general practitioner's surgery, and twice an ear infection was diagnosed. Antibiotics were prescribed, but Thomas did not get better. Just before the family left for a holiday in France, Thomas was taken to an out-of-hours GP's surgery because his parents were still worried. Again, they were told that there was nothing to worry about. By that point three doctors had diagnosed mild illness, and all three were wrong.
	A few days after arriving in France, Thomas was taken to see a French doctor who recommended further tests. Scans revealed a life-threatening medullablastoma in his brain, which was removed the following day. Thomas returned home, but although he appeared to be making a good recovery while subject to chemotherapy, his parents were told on 14 October that his cancer had spread throughout his brain and spinal cord. Thomas died just over two weeks later, some three months after the brain tumour had been diagnosed.
	Thomas's parents, George and Karen Archer, who are sitting in the Public Gallery, are determined that some good should come of their son's death, and it is due primarily to their courage and determination that I sought this debate. Karen and George have already managed to raise over £15,000 for the children's brain tumour research centre at Nottingham university. I pay tribute to them for that, and for what they have already done to raise awareness of this terrible condition. I also pay tribute to their friends and neighbours who did so much to make Thomas's last weeks special, even bringing forward Christmas when it became clear that he would not live to see it, putting up decorations early and arranging for artificial snow to cover the street where Thomas lived.
	Thomas was not, of course, the only child to die of a brain tumour last year. Approximately 100 do so every year, and such cancers are now the cause of more childhood deaths than any other disease. The House has debated this important issue before, to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who, I am pleased to say, is in his place this evening. He secured an Adjournment debate on the subject on 26 April 2004. I am indebted to him for the speech that he made on that occasion, and also to other hon. Members whose contributions highlighted the many aspects of treatment and support that children with brain tumours, and their parents and carers, so desperately need.
	I do not intend to repeat the points made then, but I commend the report of the debate to all with an interest in the subject. As my hon. Friend said,
	"the issue of children with brain tumours is under-debated, under-reported and underfunded."
	It was, and it remains so.
	Replying to the debate, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), recognised that these matters had been little considered, and said
	"I hope that opportunities can be found further to debate them in coming months because they clearly need to be explored."— [Official Report, 26 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 721–25.]
	I regret to say that there have been no such opportunities for childhood brain cancers to be debated until tonight.
	I do not seek to suggest that no progress has been made in the treatment of cancer generally, or that this debate should be used to condemn the NHS for failing Thomas Archer. I do, however, wish to mention two respects in which I believe that improvements may be made in terms of this highly distressing condition.
	First, there is the need to identify childhood brain tumours at an early stage more often. I recognise the great difficulty of diagnosing such conditions, the symptoms of which may be almost indistinguishable from those of other much less serious illnesses, and I cannot judge the general practitioners who failed to do so in the case of Thomas Archer. The fact remains, however, that a French doctor detected brain cancer where three British doctors did not, and, regardless of blame, we should investigate the reasons for that. I hope the Minister will be spurred by this case to think again about what enhancements to the education and awareness of, in particular, family doctors may be necessary.
	Secondly, on the importance of effective research, the Minister will know that the NHS spends less on brain cancers than on other cancers, leaving a gap to be filled by the voluntary sector. That, too, is a problem. I understand that national cancer charities spend less than 4 per cent. of their annual research budgets on all forms of childhood cancer. Of course, I understand that the NHS in its current financial state cannot provide limitless resources for the funding of research into childhood brain cancers or, indeed, anything else. We must hope that some of the health research fund that the Chancellor announced in the Budget finds its way to such research. I understand too that, given the relatively small number of childhood cancers compared with adult   cancers, there is bound to be a discrepancy in funding, although that compounds the problem, as pharmaceutical companies are also reluctant to invest for the same reason.
	There is, however, something practical that the Government can do to help without the need for substantial extra resources. If we look to medical science to provide new treatments for brain cancer in children, the worst thing that we can do is to put obstacles in the path of medical scientists. The strong view of the consultant who treated Thomas Archer is that the implementation of the European clinical trials directive has damaged such medical research.
	I readily concede that the serious injuries recently caused to one group of volunteers shows the need for some regulation of clinical trials, but it is vital that regulation does not become counter-productive. A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal by two Finnish researchers, discussing the impact of the directive Europe-wide, said:
	"at the outset many investigators were worried that the labour-intensive, bureaucratic and expensive endeavour of running a clinical trial would become worse. In particular, academic researchers funded by grants, who have so far performed most oncology trials, were worried that their resources might no longer suffice to meet the requirements of the new directive. A recent analysis of research since the directive suggests that many of those fears have been realised".
	The authors were referring to a report by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, which showed that clinical trial costs increased by 85 per cent. and that insurance costs doubled, following the coming into force of the directive, resulting in a 63 per cent. reduction in the number of new trials between 2004 and 2005.
	Those who suffer from childhood brain cancers cannot afford a reduction in research—they need more of it to be done—so I hope that the Minister will look again at the effect in the UK of the clinical trials directive and cut back on the paperwork, which is costing researchers too many precious hours that could be so much better spent. If those researchers can save more time, they can save more lives.
	I ask the Minister to meet the doctors at the Children's Brain Tumour Research Centre, so that she can hear directly from them about the problems that they face. So we are having this debate tonight because Thomas Archer died, but we are also having this debate so that others with the same condition may live. We all share that objective, and I ask the Minister to do all that she can to bring it about.

Bob Spink: First, I declare an interest: my son is a neurosurgeon in London.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) both on securing the debate and on the excellent and measured way in which he presented his speech tonight. He has made his case.
	We cannot begin to imagine the heartache of those with children taken with a tumour. All hon. Members in the House tonight join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to his constituents who lost their child, Thomas, and we join my hon. Friend in congratulating them on what they are doing to fight to stop others suffering as they did.
	My constituents C.A. of Benfleet wrote to me to say that their son died of brain tumour, and they were glad that MPs—certainly all those in the Chamber tonight—were fighting to help to get better research and treatment. They went on to say:
	"So many young people seem to get brain tumours and they deserve the chance of life".
	They are right. The evidence shows that the number of cases of childhood brain and spinal cancers has doubled in the past 30 years. We need to know why and to solve that problem.
	If I may digress for a moment, one thing is for certain: removing, or causing the removal of, excellent cancer centres that are working well, such as that in Southend-on-Sea, is part of the problem and will not be part of the solution.
	I want to raise tonight the specific issue of the palliative care of children with life-limiting tumours. I must first praise the children's hospice movement and the work of the Association of Children's Hospices and its wonderful chief executive, Barbara Gelb. Although I acknowledge that many parents want their children to be at home with them during what is a very difficult time, the children's hospice movement provides excellent respite care and support and enables families to go through this terribly difficult process with some dignity.
	The Prime Minister said two weeks ago in this House that the Government are looking at ways to improve the funding of palliative care. Children's hospices in particular need help urgently. They get so little, and many get no NHS funding at all. Their lottery money is running out, and beds will be lost and wonderful care and assets wasted unless the Government act now. Will the Minister write to me explaining how the children's hospice movement's loss of lottery funds will be replaced in the short term, and what longer-term funding structures for hospices the Department of Health is considering? I know that she cares deeply about these matters and will want fair play for these very poorly little angels.

Bob Blizzard: I rise to congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate this evening, following as it does the debate initiated just under two years ago by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), through which this important issue was brought before the House for the first time.
	I want to draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the continuing work of the Ellie Savage memorial trust in my part of the country. Ellie Savage was a young girl, a constituent of mine, who sadly died from a brain tumour. In her memory, her family formed this charity. To date, it has raised more than £150,000 and it is using that money to fund a three-year research project into new ways of treating glioblastoma multiform, a most aggressive form of brain cancer from which Ellie sadly died. The trust is also piloting a rehabilitation programme in partnership with Addenbrooke's hospital. It is the first to recognise that although children who are recovering from brain tumours may have overcome the tumour itself, they can be left with devastating deficits. The trust wants to educate the schools and families of those children, so that they are best able to support them.
	The trust exists primarily to give financial support to families who suffer this tragedy. It is a question not only of caring for the suffering child, but of the unpaid leave that is sometimes involved in caring for siblings. The trust supports those families, including with travelling expenses.
	What the Ellie Savage memorial trust is asking for from the Government is more support for the research to which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred, and that they also encourage primary care trusts to work in partnership with such voluntary organisations, particularly on rehabilitation. PCTs should be embracing these voluntary bodies and supporting them; that way, together, we can give these families some hope.

John Bercow: I follow colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) on raising this issue in terms that were measured, responsible and dignified, yet at the same time quietly passionate.
	I should like, if I may, briefly to make a number of other points. First, there is now a substantial body of serious research that suggests that a combination of radiotherapy and the use of temozolomide can significantly enhance survival rates for patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma. Ministers need to take account of that fact, to which they need to respond.
	Secondly, Roy Rampling, professor of neuro-oncology at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow is one of 36 consultants and specialists who have written to the Secretary of State for Health to argue that the use of temozolomide and carmustine implants is effective and represents value for money. They are challenging the judgment of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which has made a preliminary recommendation against the use of such treatments. They, with their expertise, believe that is wrong.
	Thirdly, and finally, we have to take account of the views of those experts. Professor Rampling believes that the treatments to which I referred represent the biggest breakthroughs in the treatment of brain tumours in 30 years. We are entitled to ask the Minister, in the most sincere terms, why between two and three times as many people are being treated with temozolomide in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Their doctors obviously think it makes sense.
	My appeal to the Minister is that she will consider the possibility that a wrong judgment has been made, keep an open mind, and listen to the evidence. Could there be a better way for her to do so than to come before a meeting of the all-party group on brain tumours, of which I am privileged to be chairman, where she could hear the arguments from those infinitely more expert than I will ever be and be offered the opportunity to respond?

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) on securing the debate, which has highlighted the tragic case of Thomas Archer and the courage and determination of his parents. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to express my deepest sympathy to them. The fact that we have quite a crowded Adjournment debate shows the importance attached to the issue.
	Before I turn to the some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made, I shall provide some background information about cancers among children. In the difficult circumstances of the debate, this is difficult to say but, thankfully, cancer in children is rare and there have been remarkable improvements in survival rates over the past 30 years. Some of that improvement has been due to technical advances and the centralisation of care in specialist centres, as well as the hard work of clinicians and researchers. Seventy-five per cent. of children with cancer can now be cured, but I recognise that although survival rates for children diagnosed with brain tumours have improved in recent years, they are not, as the hon. Gentleman said, as high as for some other childhood cancers.
	The hon. Gentleman gave an extremely moving account of what happened to Thomas Archer. I hope he will understand that it is extremely difficult for me to talk about individual cases, but I can assure him that I certainly recognise the need to ensure that the signs and symptoms of cancer are picked up as soon as possible so that a quick and accurate diagnosis can be made. To put that in context, a GP will see on average only one child under 15 with cancer every 20 years, yet they will see many children each week with a wide variety of symptoms that could be cancer. It is important to recognise that they have a difficult job to do. In April 2000, we tried to support GPs in that respect by issuing "Referral guidelines for suspected cancer", which aimed to help them to identify patients, including children, who were likely to have cancer and so required urgent assessment.
	After the debate in 2004—I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for initiating it—the guidelines were updated by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and reissued in June 2005. That had been raised during the debate. The guidelines include a section on cancers in children and young people and specifically try to address the signs and symptoms of brain tumours. The Healthcare Commission is currently consulting on how to ensure that those standards are implemented across the country, so that there is consistency. I fully appreciate that that will not be of comfort to Thomas's parents at this point, but I hope that it shows that action is in hand to ensure that GPs are alert to possible symptoms of cancer in children and are able to act accordingly.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also raised the issue of research into brain tumours. Again, that issue was raised in the 2004 debate. My Department has established the national cancer research network, which considers specialist research work on paediatric oncology. The network has a dedicated brain tumour group, which is currently running a range of studies on the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumours in children. Separately, my Department funds the childhood cancer research group at Oxford university, which maintains the national registry of childhood tumours. That is the largest population-based childhood cancer registry in the world. The Department also supports a senior clinical research fellow at Birmingham university to study a comparison of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and tumour genetics in childhood brain tumours.
	I know that we can always argue for more research into particular cancers, but I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance that particular research into childhood brain tumours is being carried out. Research into other childhood tumours can help our understanding in this area, too. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will ensure that the National Cancer Research Institute is aware of the points that hon. Members have made.
	In addition, the hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about the clinical trials directive. As he acknowledged, it is important that we have in place proper protection for those participating in clinical trials, because of the risk that the trials may pose to individuals. I can assure him that we will assess the effects of implementing the directive, including a consideration of whether it is over-bureaucratic, as soon as reliable evidence is available. I will certainly take up his offer to meet the doctors he mentioned.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham expressed concern about NICE's preliminary recommendations, in December, on the use of carmustine implants and Temodal in the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma. Those recommendations were subject to a period of consultation, which ended on 1 February, and NICE's final recommendations are, as he said, expected to be published in August 2006. Those final recommendations can be appealed. NICE is an independent body, which we rely on to produce clinical and cost-effective guidance to the NHS—based on the latest available evidence and having considered the comments that it receives during consultation. It is difficult for Ministers to comment on some of these issues, but I will certainly take up his offer to meet the group that he talked about. As I have said, the recommendation is not the final one and, in the meantime, primary care trusts have the discretion to fund the treatments outwith the final recommendations.
	Points have been raised in the debate about the way in which services for children with brain cancer are organised and staffed. Again, those points built on some of the issues raised in the 2004 debate. In August 2005, NICE produced service guidance on how the NHS could improve services for children and young people with cancer, including those with brain tumours. The national cancer director has established a group, which he co-chairs with the national children's director, to help to implement the guidance. The group will certainly consider several of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), especially the need for members of the voluntary and charitable sector, such as the Ellie Savage memorial trust, to work with the NHS. I assure my hon. Friend that I will ensure that the two co-chairs of the group are aware of the ideas that he put forward in the debate so that they can examine them closely.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised the issue of children's hospices. I am sure that he is aware that we made a number of commitments in our manifesto on how to increase palliative care, and we will make further announcements on the matter, including on children's hospices. I am well aware of the point that he raised and certainly undertake to write to him about it.
	I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and, indeed, to Thomas's parents, who, as the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, have been campaigning, raising money and trying to raise awareness. It is tribute to everyone who has spoken in the debate that they have added to that awareness campaign. There is certainly still more than we need to do to improve services for children with brain tumours, but we have set in train several actions, which have arisen because of points that hon. Members have made in the House previously. I hope that those actions will bring about change in an area that anyone who has heard the debate will realise is extremely important and something that still tragically affects too many children and, of course, their parents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Midnight.